Full text of "Natalio Fernandez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible"

See other formats

THE SEPTUAGINT
IN CONTEXT

Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible
BY

NATALIO FERNANDEZ MARCOS

TRANSLATED BY WILFRED G.E. WATSON

BRILL
LEIDEN - BOSTON - KOLN
2000

‘This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Published with financial support from the Direccidn General del Libro, Archivos y
Bibliotecas del Ministerio de Educacién y Cultura, Spain

Library of Congress Cataloging~in Publication data

Fernandez Marcos, Natalio, 1940-
[Introduccion a las versiones griegas de la Biblia. English]
The Septuagint in context : introduction to the Greek version of the Bible /
by Natalio Fernandez Marcos ; translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 9004115749
1. Bible. Greek—Versions. {. ‘Title.

BS38.F4713 2000
221.4°8—de21 00--041378
CIP

Deutsche Bibliothek — CIP-Einheitsaufmahme

Fernandez Marcos, Natalio :
The Septuagint in context : introduction to the Greek version of the
bible / by Natalio Fernandez Marcos. Transl. by Wilfred G.E. Watson.
Leiden ; Boston ; Kéin : Brill, 2000
ISBN 90-04-11574-9

ISBN 90 04 115749

© Copyright 2000 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prrior written
permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granied by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA,
Fees are subject to change.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Foreword xi
Acknowledgements xv
PART ONE :
THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING
1 Biblical Greek and its Position within hoiné 3

a. History of Research oe «33
b. Comparison with the Papyri 6
c. The New Approach of Bilingualism 9
d. The Technical Language of Hellenistic Prose .... 12
c. Conclusions 13
Select Bibliography... 16

2 The Septuagint as a Translation .. 18
a. An Unprecedented Event .......... 18
b. A Range of Translation Techniques .. 22
c. Modern Linguistics and the Translation Process 26
Select Bibliography 30

PART TWO
THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

3 The Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas and Other Ancient Sources ...... 35
a. The Jews of Alexandria ......ceceeeeeceeseseeteeeeeteeneees . 35
b. Description and Contents of the Letter ..... . 36
6 FSROTI TY ec esneivisian ceria binecoenyeneteen 39
d. Date of Composition and Sources 41
c. Purpose of the Leiter 43
f. The Letter in Jewish Tradition .. 44
g. Later Legend concerning the Origin of the

Septuagint
h. The Completion of the Septuagint .... 4
Select Bib tiograbloy: “ui sccsevaseoccnsoncncasseteantidoerssutissesisusnscesatveeusbendesd

CONTENTS

Modern Interpretations of the Origins of the

Septuagint ox. ce yeeedieediccaveeiei escent ntienedgieeentansaee 53

a. The Septuagint as a Greek Targum (P. Kahle)

b. An Alexandrian Origin but in the Maccabean
Period (€. 146 BOE) o......cscssesessssssesseecnesceeeeerenenteneeeneneees 57

c. A Palestinian Origin ... 58
d. A Liturgical Origin 59
e. The Transcription Theory ... 61
f. Other Theories 62
g. The Proto-Septuagint .... a 64
elect Bibliography ....ececcececeeereccee . 66
The Septuagint and the Hebrew Text «...cccceeeceeies 67
a. Two Texts Face to Face 67
b. Qumran and the Septuagint .. 70
c. The Use of the Septuagint in Hebrew Textual

Criticism 76
d. Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism cn
Select Bibliography ....cecccccscssosccecesesssssneseneneereseseeneneneneneeneseneents 83
The Double Texts of the Greek Bible and
Targumism 85
a. Introduction ... . 85
b. Double Texts in the Septuagint 0.0... 88
C. Targus o....secescecssesesessesesscseesssssnsesesecseenensessencareersntanes 101
Select. Bibliography .... 103

PART THREE

THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION
Aquila and his Predecessors_ .... 09
a. Ancient Witnesses ............. li
b. The Sources of this Version . 113
G. Characteristhes. <0) 0dtnerdieiensr «LBD
d. Current Research and Future Prospects 19
Select Bibliography .........1cssssssesessessessessensseeeseeseseeeeneneaeonsnenenees 21
Symmachus the Translator 23
a. Ancient: Witnesses: 2s..c222...ccesesscccucscit cect cacbierabesetcacesonsts 23

CONTENTS

b. Sources for Symmachus .

c. Characteristics oc.
d. Current Research and Future Prospects .... we
Select Bibliography .......cccccccccetscse estes teste tetereeeenereeenenecenenes

Theodotion and the xatye Revision 00... eeeeenerereeeee
a. Ancient Witnesses ....
b. Sources ....ceeee
c. Characteristics .........

d. Current Research and Future Prospects
Select Bibliography

Other Ancient Versions
a. The Quinta (E’)
b. The Sexta (2°)

c. The Septia ..........
d. The Hebrew ....
e
f.
g.

. The Syrian

The Samariticon
. Josephus the Translator ...
Select Bibliography

Jewish Versions into Mediaeval and Modern Greek ......
a. WiMeSSES oo. eececeeeeeeeceetaeeeneneteeeetentnenes

b. Relationship to Earlier Jewish Versions
Select Bibliography

PART FOUR
THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Transmission and Textual History 0...
a. Introduction ote
b. External Transmission ..
c. Internal Transmission .....
d. Textual Restoration ..
Select Bibliography

Origen’s Hexapla
a. Origen and his Knowledge of Hebrew .

viii

CONTENTS

bi “THe Hexele it cetireicopere sie dnimemseinndonsitanmas
c. The Fifth Column of the Hexapla and the secunda ....
Select Bibliography

The Lucianic Recension

a. Ancient Witnesses ........

b. History of Research

c. Characteristics

d. Current Research and Future Prospects:
The Proto-Lucianic Text ..

Select Bibliography

232
236

Hesychian Recension or Alexandrian Group of
Manuscripts?
a. Ancient Witnesses .... ce
b. The History of Research 0.0... eececeeceeeeeeseeneenes 241
c. Hesychian Recension or Alexandrian Revision?
Select Bibliography

Other Revisions
a. Pre-Hexaplaric Revisions ...
b. Para-Hexaplaric Revisions ....
Select Bibliography

Indirect Transmission: Biblical Quotations 1.0.0.0 258
a. The Septuagint in Hellenistic Jewish Historians ........ 260
b. The Septuagint in the Apocrypha and

Pseudepigrapha

. The Septuagint in Philo and Josephus
d. The Septuagint in the New Testament, Apostolic

Fathers and Apologists
e. The Septuagint in Inscriptions and Papyri /
f. Quotations from the Fathers and the Septuagint ...... 269
Select Bibliography ..eccccsccccecserecrerecrecssssssesseseseesseneesennisenanetnens 271

Aporiai and Biblical Commentaries
a. Aporiat
b. Commentaries ...
Select Bibliography

CONTENTS

19 The Literature of the Catenae

a. Formation of the Literary Genre .
b. Formal Aspects of Catenary Manuscripts
d

. Textual Contents of the Catenae
. Methodology for Studying the Catenae
e. Catenary Manuscripts in Spanish Libraries
Select Bibliography

PART FIVE
THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

20 The Religion of the Septuagint and Hellenism
a, Introduction: ssac.acincsaeaoads
b. The Hellenisation of the Jews eed
c. The Hellenisation of the Septuagint «0.0...

d. The Formal Hellcnisation of the Wisdom
WHEN GS, csssecesssdigesssccisiuss sdetotnideteentedhcasuatanstesiveaVoignsingesee
Select Bibliography. 2:2: .c.ctdticescuist i cpictescnsesenedachstetuctnve aeteecencae

21 The Septuagint and the New Testament
a. Introduction’ -cicccamunetnoncdosaaniee
b. Quotations of the Old Testament in the New ..........
c. Other Areas of Influence
Select Bibliography

22 The Septuagint and Early Christian Literature ...
a. The Bible of the Fathers...
b. The Septuagint and Christian Greek
c. The Septuagint Translated
Select Bibhography

Glossary of Technical Terms ....
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Biblical Quotations
Abbreviations

305
305
306
311

314
318

320
320
323
332
335

338
338
343
346
361

363
369
382
389

FOREWORD

When the first edition of this work, published in 1979, ran out it
seemed like a good opportunity to prepare a second edition, revised
and brought up to date. Every field of biblical research, but particu-
larly the history of the biblical text, has undergone profound changes
over the last twenty years as a result of the new information pro-
vided by the documents from Qumran. In addition, recent studies
on the Septuagint as a literary work have helped to give vital stimu-
lus to study of the Greck versions of the Bible.

The title of this book expresses the main concern that, as a selec-
tive criterion, has been my guide during the course of its produc-
tion. I am aware that the Septuagint is not a translation but a
“collection of translations”, but I also think that an introduction of
this kind should include other translations of the Bible into Greek —
some better known, others preserved only as fragments — whose
authors turned to the Hebrew text with more or less success but
with the firm resolve of transmitting the original better than their
predecessors. This activity of correcting and improving the first ver-
sion of the Bible, the Septuagint, began the day after the transla-
tion, as can be conjectured judging by the Jewish papyri we have,
and went on until the Byzantine cra. We can even extend this process
to the publication of the trilingual Pentateuch of Constantinople in
1547. The special history of the text of the Greek Bible, which cul-
minated in the production of Origen’s Hexapla, precludes separat-
ing these two sources of a single channel of transmission.

Tt is mandatory to mention here two classics in this area of research:
H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (revised by
R. R. Ottley, Cambridge 1914), which is a mine of information and
assimilated knowledge, indispensable even today as a reference work,
although, of course, obsolete in many respects; and S. Jellicoe, The
Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford 1968), produced to complement
and update the previous work. To these must be added the recent
publication by the French specialist scholars M. Harl, G. Dorival
and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Seplante: Du judaisme hellenistique
au christianisme ancien (Paris 1988). These three works are present in
this Introduction. Hence it often refers to them for information and

xi FOREWORD

aspects of research which they include, whereas I am more expan-
sive in those chapters that include cither recent achievements or the
questions most discussed in recent years. A mere glance at the list
of contents is enough to give some idea of the new topics or those
points which, while not completely new, are tackled from a different
perspective.

Nor should there any need to say that this Introduction claims to
be selective rather than exhaustive. It does not treat systematically
such important topics as the language of the Septuagint, the manu-
scripts, the papyri and the principal editions of the Greck Bible,
the problems peculiar to each book or the history of research on
the Septuagint. Most of these points are studied extensively in the
introductions by Swete, Jellicoc or Harl et af. mentioned above. On
the other hand, the specialised bibliographies by S. P. Brock, Ch.
T. Fritsch, 8S. Jellicoe, A Classyied Bibliography of the Septuagint (Leiden
1973), and C. Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint: Bibliographie de la
Sepiante 1970-1993 (Leiden 1995), can be used for guidance on most
of these topics (I will refer to these two works respectively as CB
and Dogniez BS throughout this volume}. However, in the last chap-
ter I have inserted a short guide to the secondary versions, some of
which, like the Old Latin or the Coptic versions, are of primary
importance for restoring the Old Greek.

I could also have tackled in a more systematic way such significant
topics as:the translation techniques of the various books, the manu-
script illustrations, or the Greck Bible and information technology.
However, it was necessary to circumscribe in some way the frame
of reference of this Introduction in order to keep to a logical plan and
to remain within reasonable limits, particularly with regard to the
length of the book. Instead, space has been given to material that,
in my opinion, has so far not been properly discussed, such as the
double texts of the Greck Bible and Targumism, the Jewish versions
into mediaeval and modern Greek, and several chapters in section
IV such as those on other revisions, biblical quotations, the com-
mentaries, and the calenae. Also, I have considered it useful to include
two new chapters in this second edition, one on the Septuagint and
the Hebrew text and other on the Scptuagint and early Christian
literature, in view of the special attention given to these topics in
recent publications.

To conclude, I hope that this modest contribution to the study of
the Greek text of the Bible will be useful not only to a small and

FOREWORD xiii

select group of Septuagintalists but also to biblical scholars in gen-
eral, philologists and historians of antiquity, and for all those inter-
ested in this important cultural legacy.

I would like to thank M* Isabel Tejero, research assistant in the
Departamento de Filologia Biblica y de Oriente Antiguo in the
Instituto de Filologia del CSIC, for her work in putting the first edi-
tion of this book into computerised format.

Natalio Fernandez Marcos

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Wilfred G. E. Watson for his willingness to trans-
late this Introduction from the Spanish. During the translation process
we have been in frequent contact in order to clarify the meaning of
difficult passages. Kristin De Troyer read the English manuscript
and made some valuable suggestions. Although the original manu-
script was completed in 1996, some subsequently published titles
have been incorporated into the English edition, especially in the
notes and bibliography.

I am grateful to Brill Academic Publishers, especially to Mr Hans
van der Meij and Annick Mcinders-Durksz, for their interest in this
translation and their friendly cooperation to carry it out.

Madrid, January 2000
Natalio Fernandez Marcos

“icing taprcadeeiliaes si wise = 2 Z % “ zi ace iercpeyn Ane ae

PART ONE

THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

CHAPTER ONE

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN KOINE

a) History of Research

Until the close of the 19th century, biblical Greek was understood
to be the Greek of the Bible as opposed to secular Greek. Some
theologians, impressed by the peculiaritics of these texts, the Semitic
loans, the Hebraising constructions etc., had reached the conclusion
that it was a special language of the Bible, which in some way had
come under divine inspiration.’ And although since Deissmann’s stu-
dies this expression has fallen into disfavour, it continues to be used
to indicate in a concise way some typical elements of the language
of the LXX, the pseudepigraphic writings preserved in Greck and
the New Testament, such as syntactic Semitisms, and the neologisms
coined to express Jewish~Christian concepts. In any event, it would
be preferable to speak of translation Greek since although not all
the writings included are strictly translations, they arose conditioned
by the bilingualism of their authors or are influenced to a different
extent by a translation language, the language of the LXX.

The New Testament writings began to appear in the sccond half
of the Ist century ce? at the same time as the apogee of the Attic
movement® and of the literary komé of a Plutarch or the historian
Flavius Arrianus. Attention was only paid to the past as the litera-
ture of the golden century and the literary writers of the Hellenistic

' See, for example, R. Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, Gotha 1863, 238: “Therefore we can
with reason speak of a language of the Holy Spirit. Because in the Bible it is evi-
dent how the divine Spirit operating in revelation takes the language of a particu-
lar people, chosen to be the recipient and makes it a characteristic religious variety
by transforming linguistic elements and existing concepts in a mould specially suited
for the Holy Spirit. This process is clearly evident in NT Greek.” An idea which
the theologian H. Cremer promotes in the foreword to his Biblisch-theologisches
Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gracitét, Gotha 1893, 8.

? See P. Feine, J. Behm and W. Kiimmel, Minleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg
1964,

5 See W. Schmid, Der Attizismus in seinen Hauptertretem, 1-5, Stuttgart 1887-97,
1, Vil, and M. Michaelis, “Der Attizismus und das Neue Testament”, ZNW 22
(1923), 90-121.

4 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

period such as Polybius.* It is not surprising therefore that the Greek
of the Bible would look like a foreign body and the attacks on
Christianity by Celsus, Porphyrius, Hierocles and Julian were fre-
quently peppered with contemptuous allusions to the barbaric lan-
guage of the Bible.

The Fathers of the Church reacted in different ways to this uncom-
fortable fact. Most of them accepted the differences between the New
Testament works and the literary works of contemporary pagan
authors, and attempted to justify theologically the low artistic level
of the language of the Greek Bible. According to them this simple
and plain language was chosen so that the whole world, without
exception, could understand it, since the Christian message is directed
to all men without distinction of culture or social class.° Slightly
different arguments were adopted by Origen in his Contra Celsum.®
Finally, the resort to the simple language of scripture would become
one of the most recurrent topics in the rhetorical prologues of the
works of the Fathers.’ Another movement among Christian writers,
the minority, tried to defend the artistic perfection and elegance of
biblical language and some even claimed to sce applied to biblical
compositions not only the rules of classical metrics but even various
stylistic devices.®

The distance between the Fathers and biblical Greek is evident
not only in their statements about the language of scripture but pri-

* On the channelling of culture from antiquity along lines which today are
known to us, see L. Gil, Censura en ef mundo antiguo, Madrid 1961, and W. Speyer,
“Biichervernichtung”, JAC 13 (1970), 122-53.

° For example, Isidore of Pelusia: Av 3 koi t Tpagh thy GAnBerav mel Adyo
hputivevoey, Ivo. Kai iSiato1 Kol Go@ol Koi noiSeg Kai yovaikes udOorev (PG 78,1124).
Jerome appeals to the example of the Romans who in translating Greek coined
very many neologisms without anybody being scandalised, even though in trans-
lating Greek into Latin there is less difference than in translating Hebrew to Greek
(see PL 26, 347ff).

5 Contra Celsum 1, chap. LXIT. If the apostles had used the rhetorical and dialec-
tical devices of the Greeks they would have given the impression that Jesus Christ
was the founder of a new school of philosophy. However, in this way it is proved
that the force of persuasion comes from something superior and divine.

7 It has been called “die christliche Unfihigkeitstopik” (see K. Thraede, “Unter-
suchungen zum Ursprung und zur Geschichte der christlichen Poesie” II, in JAC
5 [1962] 138), which means that these authors in the prologues to their works con-
stantly make decisive pronouncements about not using the rhetorical and brilliant
language of the classics keeping instead to the simple language of Scripture.
Nevertheless, after this declaration of principles they automatically use in their writ-
ings all the figures of literary language.

® See, for example, Augustine, De doctrina Christiana I, TV, 14.

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN KOLVE 5

marily from analysing their own writings, in particular their expla-
nations of voces biblicae which claim most attention. This new per-
spective provoked by recent studies stresses the uncase they felt with
a translation language that, to some extent detached from the orig-
inal, has been made unintelligible within the Greek system.’

During the Middle Ages the use of the Vulgate became general
in the West. In Eastern Christianity, instead, the LXX remained in
force, but we have no information that studies of its language were
a concern. It should not be forgotten however, that this is a period
in which most of the biblical manuscripts we now have were copied
and that around this activity of transmission, the avatars of the texts
can be seen and also the impact made upon it by the linguistic
development of Greek, in variants, glosses and all kinds of comments.
With the advent of Humanism, we can appreciate a renaissance
first of classical studies and somewhat later of biblical Hebrew stu-
dies. In 1520 the main edition of the Greek Bible was published in
the imner column of the Alcala Polyglot.’ Yet again the differences
from the Greek of the classics make the debate on biblical Greek
leap onto the literary stage, to continue latent in the dispute between
Hellenists and Hebraisers. The division deepened through dogmatic
questions and inspirationist theories, in that one would be a purist
or Hebraiser depending on whether or not one considered the pres-
ence of Hebraisms in biblical Greek irreconcilable with the dignity
of scripture. Prominently for the Hebraist camp are J. Drusius and
D. Heinsius, and for the Hellenist, S. Pfochen and Ch. S. Georgius,
one of the most fanatical purists. The writings of the Hebraists were
published by J. Rhenferd in Leenwarden (1702), and the writings of
the Hellenists by T. van der Honert in Amsterdam (1703)."'

® See M. Harl, “Y-a-t-il une influence du ‘grec biblique’ sur la langue spi
des chrétiens?”, in La Bible et les Péres, Strasbourg 1971, 24363, and N. Fernandez
Marcos, “En torno al estudio del griego de los cristianos”, Emerita 41 (1973), 45-56.
The linguistic information that patristic literature transmits to us about biblical
Greek is very meagre; see G. J. M. Bartelink, “Observations de Saint Basile sur la
langue biblique et théologique”, VC 17 (1963), 85-105. Hadrian’s Hisagogué, the first
treatise on biblical semantics, merits more attention.

"© It had already been printed in 1517. It took four years lo publish due to the
negotiations for obtaining papal approval. The Aldina, printed in February 1518, is
later than the printing of the Complutensian, although published earlier.

"' For further details on these two schools, sce J. Ros, De studie van het bybelgrieksch,
52 and 54. Apart from the dogmatic conditioning of this era, this controversy is a
good example of the sterility of such discussions if no attempt is made to lower the
horizon of one’s own discipline. Even today there are phenomena of biblical Greek

6 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

Unfortunately, so many years of controversy did not produce the
results one would have expected at the level of language, since the
first attempts at a systematic approach to a grammar of biblical
Greek were by Wyss and Pasor.'? Even though there was a wait last-
ing two centuries for a grammar of the New Testament, the one by
Winer applicd the new methods of linguistics to biblical Greek. In less
than a century this grammar ran to eight cditions and it was trans-
lated into various European languages.'’ In the area of the LXX, the
18th century produced a very valuable work for its time, the con-
cordance by Trom,' undoubtedly the best forerunner to the one by
Hatch ~- Redpath and in some respects preferable to it, as for exam-
ple in the distribution of the passages according to the various Hebrew
meanings to which the Greek word in question corresponds. This
century also saw the start of the great edition by Holmes — Parsons."

b) Comparison with the Papyri

However, marginal to this work, an event was taking place that was
to revolutionise the study of biblical Greek: the successive discover-
ies of papyri. Although the excavation of Herculancum had already
begun in 1752, the first finds of papyri in Egypt did not appear until
1778, and this happened by chance. At all events, these isolated dis-
coveries did not capture the attention of scholars until the Napoleonic
expedition to Egypt in 1798, an expedition which included many
scholars. From this period come the collections of papyn that are

fae a Hebraist would explain as the influence of Hebrew~Aramaic, whereas a
Hellenist would explain them as due to the diachronic development of his own
koiné, since probably both influences were concurrent at a particular moment in the
history of Greek.

% Wyssius Casparus, Dialectologia Sacra, Zurich 1650; Georgii Pasoris and Gr. L.
Professoris, Grammatica Graeca Sacra Novi Testament, Groningen 1655.

'S G. B. Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms als sichere Grundlage der
neutestamentlichen Exegese, Leipzig 1822.

"A. Trom, Concordantiae Graecae versionis vulgo dictae LXX interpretum, 2 vols, Amsterdam
1718.

'S R. Holmes and Jj. Parsons, Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus \-V,
Oxford 1798-1827. Important works from the beginning of the 19th century, before
the use of papyri for linguistic purposes, that are worth mentioning are F. G. Sturz,
De dialecto macedonica et alexandrina liber, Leipzig 1808, and the lexicon by J. Fr.
Schleusner, Novus Thesaurus philologico-criticus, swe lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes grae-
cos ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti, Leipzig 1920, the only one of its kind even
today (reprint; Turnhout, Brepols 1994).

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN KOLVE i

now to be found in the museums of Paris, Berlin, Leiden, Rome
and ‘Turin. However, only in 1877 did the real period of papyrol-
ogy begin. In that year, in the ancient city of Arsinoe, in the Fayyum,
thousands of fragments appeared. Other places in Egypt were just
as productive: Oxyrhynchus, Hermopolis, Aphroditopolis, Panopolis
(Akhmim), Elephantine and, more recently, Nag-Hammadi. From
the close of the 19th century the biblical papyri were constantly
being added to European collections. Probably the most sensational
find was in the excavations of Oxyrhynchus, carried out systemati-
cally from 1896 to 1906 by P. B. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, students
from Oxford. Today we have a considerable collection of papyri

both of the LXX and of the New Testament, which, in addition, is
16

continually growing.

In this heap of finds, next to unknown texts by ancient writers
there was a storehouse of letters, wills, administrative documents and
other writings which have put us in contact with unknown sectors
of life and society in ancient times. Hence they were primarily used
for historical and socio-economic study. It was Dcissmann who, for
the first time, used them systematically for linguistic purposes, and
in this sense his Bibelstudien (Marburg 1895) caused a transcendental
change of direction in the approach to biblical Greek.” He com-
pared the Greek of the LXX and the New Testament with the lan-
guage of the inscriptions, papyri and ostraca of the Hellenistic period,
and obtained surprising results. On the one hand he showed the
presence in secular documents of terms considered to be specifically
Christian, like those called voces biblicae: &yann, &vidnuntop, exioxonos,
mpeoPbtepos, npoehtns, Kathyap, dvabenatiCer, iepatedew, vedputos,
etc." Even words that Jerome considered peculiar to Scripture such
as dxoxéAvyig are due to error or lack of perspective by the Christian
writers, since this term and others similar terms are found in Plutarch."
As knowledge of the koiné and especially of the papyri and inscrip-
tions grew, it could be shown how the percentage of voces biblicae

" See J. O'Callaghan, “Lista de los papiros de los LXX”, Bib 66, 1 (1975),
74°93; K. Aland, Repertorium der Griechischen Christlichen Papyri. I ‘Biblische Papp. Altes
Teslament, Neues ‘Testament, Varia, Apokryphen, Berlin-New York 1976; J. van Haclst,
Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens, Paris 1976; O. Montevecchi, La Papirologia,
‘Turin 1973 (2nd edition, Milan 1988), ‘and F.'T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek
Papyri. of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, 2 vols, Milan 1976 and 1982.

" To be followed by Neue Bibelstudien in 1897 and Licht vom Osten in 1908.

A, Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 5817.

Jerome, Comm. in Gal. 1, 12 (PL 26, 34711) and A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 61.

8 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

noted by ancient philologists decreased. The clearest example is to be
found in the Dictionary by W. Bauer: if we compare the lists in the
introduction to those of the second edition, which appeared in 1928,
with the lists in the introduction to the fourth edition of 1952, we can
see that the number of voces biblicae has been considerably reduced.”

Deissmann was also opposed to the existence of Jewish-Greek as
a special language of Hellenised Jews. The introduction of certain
technical terms from the new religion docs not justify speaking of a
new language and the syntactic Semitisms are due more to the influence
of a translation language than to linguistic peculiarities of the group.
Each cultural movement, the Stoics, Gnosticism, neo-Platonism, etc.,
brings lexical neologisms but no-one would consider describing a
new language or writing a grammar of neo-Platonic writings.

The analyses of the lexicon carried out by Dcissman were extended
by A. Thumb to the field of syntax.) Besides helping to spread his
ideas, ‘Thumb set biblical Greek decidedly within the development
of koiné. He noted how quite a number of the constructions held to
be Semitisms also occur in the papyri. As a result there was no other
solution than the distinction between popular kommé on the one hand
and literary, written foiné on the other. This literary koiné was the
only one known until the discovery of papyri and inscriptions. The
Greck Bible and the papyri belong to popular foiné; both sets of docu-
ments comprised a sort of advance party within the diachronic devel-
opment of the language until modern Greek strengthened ‘Thumb’s
idea that these phenomena were due to the normal development
of Greck and not to the influence of a foreign language.” In this
hypothesis the LXX and the New Testament would be the first
writings intended for the people in a plain language that everyone
could understand.

2 W. Bauer, Zur Hinfithrung in das Weorterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Coni
Neotestamentica 15, Lund 1955. See now the sixth edition of W. Bauer, Griechise
deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schrifien des Neuen Testaments und der frithchristlichen Literatur,
edited by K. Aland and B. Aland, Berlin~New York 1988.

2" A, Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus.

2 A. Thumb, “On the Value of the Modern Greek for the Study of Ancient
Greek”, CQ 8 (1914), 181-205. For the development of Greek in the papyri, see
O. Montevecchi, “Dal Paganesimo al Cristianesimo. Aspetti dell’evoluzione della
lingua greca nei papiri dell? Egitto”, Aegyptus 37 (1957), 41-59.

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN KOINE

c) The New Approach of Bilingualism

The reaction against Deissmann-‘Thumb began in the sphere of the
New Testament. A scrics of specialists set out to find the Aramaic
sources of the gospels, starting precisely from the syntactic anom-
alies of Greek: the most prominent of these specialists were J. Well-
hausen and G. Dalman.”? The latter focused his analyses on the
distinction between Hebraisms and Aramaisms in the New Testament.
However, apart from other studies that attempt to emphasise the
rabbinic roots in the expressions and composition techniques of the
gospels, the school most energetically opposed to Deissmann was that
of C. C. Torrey and C. F. Burney. On the basis of Aramaisms they
tried to prove that a large part of the New Testament (Acts 1:1-
15:35; the Gospel of John; and the Apocalypse) is translated from
Aramaic, attributing the mistakes in translation to inconsistencies and
obscurities in the Greek text.** This theory had J. A. Montgomery,
R. B. Y. Scott and M. Burrows among its followers, but there were
also important professors who opposed it, including H.-J. Cadbury,
E.-J. Goodspeed and F.-C. Burkitt. However, in my view the best
refutation of this hypothesis is by D.-W. Riddle,® because he insists
on the lack of objective criteria for distinguishing a real translation
from something written by a bilingual person in a language less famil-
jar to him.

In spite of Deissmann’s results, biblical philologists continued to
look for Semitisms in the New Testament. For even though the data
from the papyri had been decisive in the area of the lexicon, the
constructions that diverged from classical Greck were so important
that the explanation of a few sporadic agreements with the Greek
of the papyri was not explanation enough. Moreover, the discussion
took on a new twist, turning the argument from the papyri against
Deissmann himself: the many Jews residing in the Nile Valley could
have influenced the peculiarities of the Greek of Egypt.

Are the non-classical expressions of the papyri not actually Semitisms?

4) J, Wellhausen, Hinleitung in die dret ersten Evangelien, Berlin 1911, and G. Dalman,
Die Worte Jesu, mit Beriicksigtigung des nachkanonischen jiidischen Schrifiums und der aramdischen

10 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

To this new direction of study authors such as H.-A. Redpath,
R. R. Ottley,” C.-F. Burney,” A~T. Robertson,” P. Jotion®® and
others seem to rally.

J. Vergote emphasised the impact and productive nature of this
evocative hypothesis which has a precise theoretical formulation in
the review by Lefort of Abel’s grammar of biblical Greek." He starts
from the fact of bilingualism in Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine
Egypt. There is no need, therefore, to resort — as did the authors
quoted above — to the presence of Semitisms, which is less prob-
able for the Greck of Egypt. What happens is that the same syntac-
tic phenomena which in biblical Greek are due to the influence of
Hebrew—Aramaic occur in the Greek of the papyri due to the influence
of Coptic~Egyptian. In fact the strong linguistic affinity between
Egyptian and Hebrew—Aramaic is proved not only in syntax but also
in the way reality is structured. Bilingualism, therefore, is responsi-
ble both for the syntactic peculiarities of the Greek of the Old and
New Testaments, and of the papyri. Some biblical books are too
well written to think of vulgarisms or that they express spoken koiné.
Some of them, such as the Apocalypse (Revelation), belong rather
to the class of esoteric literature. And as for the vulgarisms of the
papyri, there should be no exaggeration since their authors, at least,
knew how to write, which amounted to something in the socicty

of that time. Vergote notes accurately how in all the cases where
a Semitism of biblical Greek has been denied due to the same
construction having been found in the papyri, there is an exact par-
allel in a Coptic construction: for example, the casus pendens, the
construction with «at and finite verb after a participle or infinitive,
the pleonastic use of the personal pronoun in oblique cases, the use
of the numeral eig instead of the indefinite tg, the repetition of the
same word with a distributive mcaning, iSob meaning ‘from’, év with
an instrumental meaning, the expression of the vocative by means
of the nominative with the article.”

2 In A Handbook to the Septuagint, New York 1920, 165.

* In The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford 1922, 4.

* In A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York 1923, 91.

* In L’Evangile de Notre-Seigneur Fésus-Christ, Paris 1930, XI

3! J. Vergote, “Grec Biblique”, 1354ff, and F.-M. Abel, Grammaire du grec biblique
suivie d i

un choix de papy

§, Paris 1927; L.-T. Lefort, “Pour une grammaire des LXX”,
152-60,
rec Biblique”, 1355-59. A study of the papyri from this aspect

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN KOLVE 11

In recent years the problem of Semitisms has again been in the
foreground and the expression ‘Jewish-Greck’ recurs in both its mean-
ings, as literary language and as spoken or colloquial language.” The
deeply Semitised nature of translation Greek has again raised old
problems as the Hebrew~Aramaic sources from the times of bib-
lical Greek become better known (especially through Qumran and
the Targums) and more books of Jewish intertestamental literature
are published, written in the same Semitised Greek as the canon-
ical books. In the 1950s a new reaction against Deissmann is notice-
able both from Septuagintalists and New ‘Testament philologists.*
N. Turner insists that no-one is completely convinced of Deissmann’s
hypothesis, even though so many specialists have followed it, includ-
ing his predecessor in New Testament grammar, J. H. Moulton.
Some specifically Semitic syntactic uses stand out in contrast to the
language of the papyri, and he defends the existence of Jewish-Greck
in the first centuries shared by the LXX, the New Testament and
the pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic writers. He sets out these ideas
in the mtroduction to the third volume of his grammar of the New
Testament, on syntax.* The peculiarity of biblical Greck was to
become a characteristic feature in the first place in the translation
Greek of the LXX and which later was transmitted to other intertes-
tamental writers and to the New Testament ~ even if they are not
translations — as a sort of sacred language that had to be imitated.
At a later stage a distinction has to be made between global Semitisms,
Hebraisms and Aramaisms, and Septuagintisms proper. Within this

reveals many other peculiarities of the Greck of Egypt which can be explained by
their closeness to Coptic constructions.

3M. Black, “The Semitic Element in the New Testament”, ET 77 (1965-66),
20-23: “And this language, like the Hebrew of the Old ‘Testament which moulded
it, was a language apart from the beginning; Biblical Greek is a peculiar language,
the language of a peculiar people” (p. 23).

% See P. Katz, “Zur Ubersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta”, Die Welt des Orients
4 (1956), 272ff%; H. S. Gehman, “The Hebraic Character of the Septuagint”, V7

1 (1951), 81-90: “If the LXX made sense to Hellenistic Jews, we may infer that
there was a Jewish Greck which was understood apart from the Hebrew language”,
p. 90; Gehman, “Hebraisms of the Old Greck Version of Genesis”, V7 III (1953),
141— 48; Gehman, “"Ayiog in the Septuagint, and its Relation to the Hebrew
Original”, VT IV (1954), 337-48; N. Turner, “The Unique Character of Biblical
Greek”, V7 V (1955), 208-13; Turner, “The Testament of Abraham: Problems in
Biblical Greek”, N7'S I (1955), 222%

% J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. HHI: Syntax by N. Turner,
Edinburgh 1963, biblical Greek as a whole “is a unique language with a unity
and character of its own”.

12 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

tendency must be included recent philological works on the New
Testament by Beyer,** Black? and Wilcox.

d) The Technical Language of Hellenistic Prose

From a different perspective, better knowledge of Hellenistic prose
has contributed to modifying the conclusions of Deissmann about
popular and literary Aoiné in relation to biblical Greck. This starts
with the monographs devoted to the language of a particular Hellenistic
author such as the one by Durham on Menander,* or the one by
Bonhoeffer on Epictetus,” up to more recent studies on late literary
and popular Greek carried out chiefly by the Swedish school of Uppsala
and Lund. Some of this research is the result of doctoral theses that
were never published, such as Arnim’s study of Philo of Byzantium."!
Others have had more success, such as Meechar’s work on the Letter
of Aristeas” or the study by Adrados on Aesop’s Fables.‘

In the 1946 Tyndale Lecture, E. K. Simpson proposed a series
of words from the Greek Bible that the papyri did not illustrate but
which instead were explained by comparison with literary usage in

% K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. Band I, Satzlehre Tail 1, Gottingen 1962,
11. For bilingualism in the field of phonology, see F. T. Gignac, 4 Grammar of the
Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Volume I: Phonology, Milan 1975, 46ff.

3? M. Black, An Aramatc Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1954.

38M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts, Oxford 1965. Recent publications such as
J. Amstutz, ‘AxAdtnc. Eine begnifigeschichitiche Studie zum jiidisch-christlichen Griechisch.
‘Theophaneia 9, Bonn 1968, while not discussing Jewish-Greek, presuppose at least
a certain linguistic unity in this material due to the chronological limitations and
the selection of texts that they make (Greek Bible, Jewish-Hellenistic literature,
Jewish-Palestinian literature, New ‘Testament and early Christian writings). However,
the results make biblical Greek an integral part of koiné, since the only new mean-
ing of &rAdtyg in the synagogue-church which was not already represented in the
foiné is “simplicity-totality or integrity”, ibid. 14.

% D. B. Durham, The Vocabulary of Menander considered in its relation to the koiné,
Princeton 1913 (reprint Amsterdam 1969), where the relationship of the LXX lex-
icon with the lexicon of middle and new comedy is clear (p. 103). .

* A. Bonhoeffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament, Giessen 1911, for the linguistic
closeness between Stoic and Pauline parenesis. In this sense the monographs in the
series Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti published in Leiden, especially G. Mussies,
Dio Chrysostom and the New Testament (1972), and P. W. Van der Horst, Aelius Aristides
and the New Testament (1980), can provide interesting comparative data.

“'M. Arnim, “De Philonis Byzantii dicendi genere”. Diss. Greifswald (912.

*® F, Rodriguez-Adrados, Estudio sobre el léxico de las fabulas esdpicas. En torno a tos
problemas de la koiné klerana, Salamanca 1948.

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN AONE 13

Hellenistic prose." And in 1955, J. Palm devoted an impeccable
study to the language and style of Diodorus Siculus. In Palm’s opin-
ion, the term oiné should be reserved for the popular language of
the post-classical period, and the expression ‘normal Hellenistic prose’
for the language used by authors such as Philo of Byzantium,
Apollonius of Perge, Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, a prose which
became widespread with the flowering and diffusion of the various
sciences in the Hellenistic period, consistent and logical, a suitable
and functional tool for practical purposes, not very different from
the modern prose of administrative language with its own pros and
cons.*® This movement culminated in a monograph of Rydbeck, who
formulated the thesis that the language of the New Testament is
closer to the specialised, scientific and technical prose of its period
than to the language of the papyri.”

e) Conclusions

The outright achievement of Deissmann — Thumb, definitive in terms
of methodology, has been to rescue biblical Greek from the domain
of theology, in order to study it not on its own but as an integral
part of Hellenistic Greek. The secular and sterile discussion between
Hellenists and Hebraisers has been resolved, as has the idea of bib-
lical Greek as a special language, a suitable vehicle for the express-
ion of a religious movement. Today, in the paths opened up by
Deissmann and Thumb, belong projects such as Horsley’s on the
new documents to illustrate primitive Christianity, or studies such as
Silva’s which uses the analysis of bilingualism and the approaches
of modern linguistics.”

However, the various approaches that we have seen from the close
of the 19th century, such as inscriptions, papyri, bilingualism or the

“E. K. Simpson, Words Worth Weighing in the Greek NT. Tyndale Lecture, 1946.

*® J. Palm, Uber Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien. Kin Beitrag zur Beleuchtung
der hellenistischen Prosa, Lund 1955, The language of Diodorus has many features in
common with the second book of Maccabees, p. 199, and L. Gil, “Sobre el estilo
del libro segundo de los Macabeos”, Aimerita 26 (1958), 11-32.

" L. Rydbeck, Bachprosa, vermeiniliche Volksprache und Neues Testament.

* G. H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 1-5, Macquarie
University, 1981-89, and Horsley, “Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek
Bible”, Bib 65 (1984), 393-403; M. Silva, “Bilinguism and the Character of Palestinian
Greek”, Bib 61 (1980), 198-219.

14 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

literary works of Aoiné, came to the fore in research. They show us
that we are only beginning to know post-classical Greek. Each mono-
graph discovers new contacts between biblical Greek and the lin-
guistic area being explored, and as a result shifts the perspective to
that particular area of comparison.

Thus a systematic study of all the documentation of the Hellenistic
period is required, popular as well as literary, to be able to place
the Greek of the Bible in its correct location. In reality, the lan-
guage of the LXX has not yet been examined thoroughly in the
light of the enormous number of papyrus documents. Although we
know enough about the popular Greek of Egypt in the Ptolemaic
period, our knowledge of the literary use of Greek in the same period
is very inexact; the lack of studies of the language of post-classical
Greek is too obvious a fact to be stressed. The koiné does not have
to be as uniform as the manuals insist. Today it is increasingly
accepted that most of the morphological innovations of modern Greek
go back to the period of Aoiné.” It is also possible that there were
greater degrees of dialectal differentiation than we know through the
process of linguistic uniformity imposed by a great section of liter-
ary komé and the way of speaking well and writing well spread by
the Atticist movement.”

A. Meillet, Apergu d’une histoire de la langue grecque, Paris 1965, 334; S. G.
Kapsomenos, “Die griechische Sprache zwischen Koiné und Neugriechisch”, 19ff;
A. Mirambel, La langue grecque moderne. Description et analyse, Paris 1959, 8. The prob-
lem of biblical Greek is to some extent linked with the way hoiné spread, about
which there is as yet no agreement among historians of the Greck language.
Kretschmer puts this expansion within the domain of spoken language, as spread
by Alexander’s conquests. The soldiers carried with them elements of the various
dialects of the countries from which they came and as a result the koiné is an amal-
gam or mosaic of dialects (see “Dic Entstehung der koiné”). However, according
to Meillet, Apergu d'une histoire, 249-54, the koiné spread as a modern language through
the conquering spread of Attic, which as a superior cultural language, imposed its
ways of speaking and writing. This theory is also defended by E. Mayser, Grammatik
der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptoleméerzeit 1,1 Berlin, 1970 1-4, Depending on which
theory specialists hold, they will explain the anomalies in the Greek of the papyri
and the Bible as a reflex of popular usage or as the literary influence of a foreign
language. On the impact of the social and political history of Athens on the lan-
guage, see A. Lopez Eire, “Historia antigua e historia de la lengua griega: el ori-
gen del griego helenistico”, Studia Historica 1,1 (1983), 5~19.

5° §.G. Kapsomenos, “Die griechische Sprache zwischen koiné und neugriechisch”;
Kapsomenos, “Das Griechische in Aegypten”, Museum Helveticum 10 (1953), 248-63,
and N, Fernandez Marcos, “;Rasgos dialectales en la koiné tardia de Alejandria?”,
Emerita 39 (1971), 33-47.

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN KOLNE 15

Alongside this deepening at all levels of the production of koiné,
more attention should be paid to the phenomenon of bilingualism
and its repercussions in the area of syntax. Most of the peculiar fea-
tures of the Greek of Egypt can usually be explained by the influence
of Coptic. One should not speak of the vulgarisms of the papyri
(some of which also have literary merit) but in each case it needs
to be determined which phenomenon is duc to the inner develop-
ment of Hellenistic Greek and which depends on or has traces of
the influence of Coptic. And given the difficulty of this distinction
in many cases, since Coptic is a language with a very simple con-
struction, it has to be determined in which cases a particular lin-
guistic phenomenon could be the result of both tendencies combined.
This same analysis has to be applied to the Greek of the Bible. It
is necessary for studies of the language of the New Testament to be
extended, to the same level and to the same degree, to the Greek
of the LXX. It is also necessary to use all the linguistic information
provided by the intertestamental pseudepigraphic writings to trace
as far as possible the successive stages in the development of bibli-
cal Greek. This is because the Greek of the Pentateuch, a transla-
tion Greek written in the 3rd century BcE in Egypt is not the same
as New Testament Greek or the Palestinian Greek of the Lives of the
Prophets of the Ist~2nd centuries ce. Even so, the many common
features allow it to be studicd as a single linguistic complex that has
its own identity, in spite of the differences in detail, for the influence
of the first translation of the LXX extends even to the books that
were not translated from Hebrew—Aramaic, such as the New Testament
or certain pscudepigraphic writings.®'

At the close of this long survey of the history of biblical Greek,
from the first reactions by the Fathers of the Church until the pre-
sent, it would seem that there has been little progress if we consider
that the problem of the existence or not of a Jewish Greek, around
which at various stages the discussion has revolved, although it is

5! Apparently this translation Greek imposed its own linguistic categories on a
series of later religious writers since it was considered to be a sacred language. It
is sufficient to see how the translator of the book of Sira, capable of writing Greek
adorned with rhetorical figures as shown by the prologue, turned to channels of
Semitised Greek or translation Greek to begin his version of the Hebrew text. On
the other hand, if we compare passages from the LXX (Exodus, Kings, Chronicles)
with parallel passages from Josephus, there is a clear shift from the semantic calque
of Hebrew in translating the LXX, to an imitation of classical Greek which chiefly
affected style.

16 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

dismissed today in most publications, continues to some extent latent
under the name of translation Greek. However, the question of
iblical Greek is not banal, even though it has remained hidden and
as comprised the background to impassioned discussions not only
in the Reformation and post-Renaissance periods but even in our
own day. Melancthon’s statement that Scriptura non potest intelligi theo-
logice nist antea intellecta sit grammatice® continues to be valid. It must
clearly understood that the only way to come close to ancient
thinking is inductively through language and not the reverse. And
we can only understand this language through analysis — as com-
plete as possible — of all the documents (in the widest sense) of the
past that are available to us.>‘ Although the impact on the language
of any important cultural or religious movement must be taken into
account,” Barr’s comments on Kittel’s lexicon of the New Testament
should keep us alert to the constant danger of going beyond the
imits of semantics, inserting into the text elements of interpretation
that really belong to biblical theology.

SELECT BIsLIOGRAPHY

Abel, F.-M., “Coup d’ocil sur la koiné”. RB 23 (1926), 5-26.

Debrunner, A., Geschichte der griechtschen Sprache. Ll Grundfragen und Grundztige des nach-
Hassischen Griechisch, Berlin 1954.

Deissmann, A., Bibelstudien, Marburg 1895.

; Lackt vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten ‘Texte der hellenistisch-
romischen Well, Titbingen 1923*.

—., Neue Bibelstudien, Marburg 1897.

Frésén, J.,. Prolegomena to a Study of the Greek Language in the First Century AD: The Problem
of Koiné and Aiticism, Helsinki 1974.

Gehman, H. S., “The Hebraic Character of LXX”. VT 1 (1951), 81-90.

Hadrianus, Eisagogué, ed. F. Gossling, Berlin 1887.

® Using the terminology of Sephiha for calque-languages, we would say that
there is no evidence for spoken Jewish-Greek; instead there must have been a trans-
lation Greek in which some peculiar syntactic features emerged due to the source
language, Hebrew—Aramaic; see H. V. Sephiha, Le ladino, judéo-espagnol calque.
Deutéronome. Versions de Constantinople (1547) et de Ferrara (1553). Edition, étude linguistique
et lexique, Paris 1973, 424.

% ‘Taken from J. Ros, De studie van het bijbelgrieksch, 9.
5 ith, “The Social Description of Early Christianity”, SR 1, |
(1975), “The second option is to take seriously the notion that man creates
his world primarily through language ... not by theological and philosophical specu-
lation on ‘hermeneutics’” (p. 21).

6 C. Mohrmann, “Transformations linguistiques et évolution sociale ct spirituelle”,
VC 11 (1957), 11-37.

% J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford 1961, 206ff.

BIBLICAL GREEK AND ITS POSITION WITHIN KOLNE 17

Harl, M., “La langue de la Septante”. M. Harl e al, La Bible grecque des Septanie,
223-66.

Kapsomenos, 8. G., “Die griechische Sprache zwischen koiné und neugriechisch”.
Berichte zum XT Intern. Byzantinisten-Rongress, Munich 1958, 1-39 (with a lengthy
bibliography on the inscriptions, papyri and modern Greek as an indirect source
for the linguistic phenomena of Aoiné).

Kretschmer, P., “Die Entstehung der Koiné”. Stlgungsbericht der Wiener Akad. Phil.-
fist. Klasse, 144, X, Vienna 1900,

Mussies, G., “Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora”. The Jewish People in the First
Century, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, I, 2, Assen-Amsterdam 1976, 1040-64.

, The Morphology of koiné Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. Fokn: A Study in
Bilingualism. NTS 27, Leiden 1971.

Orlinsky, H- ‘Current Progress and Problems in Septuagint Research”. The
Study of ible Teday and Tomorrow, ed. H. R. Willoughby, Chicago 1947,
144-61.

sichari, J., “Essai sur le grec de la Septante”. REY 1908, 161-208.

os, J., De studie van het bybelgnieksch van Hugo Grotius tot Adolf Deissmann, Nijmegen
1940.

Rydbeck, L., Fachprosa, vermeintliche Votksprache und Neues Testament. Zur Beurteilung der

sprachlichen Niveauunterschiede in nachklassischen Griechisch, Uppsala 1967.

Thackeray, H. St J., A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint.

Vol. I: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence, Cambridge 1909.

Thumb, A., Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Beitriige zur Geschichte und

Beurteilung der Koiné, Strasbourg 1901 (reprinted by De Gruyter, Berlin~-New

York 1974).

Tumer, E. G., Greek Papyri: An Introduction, Oxford 1968.

Turner, N., “The Unique Character of Biblical Greck”. VT 5 (1955) 208-13.

Vergote, J., “Grec Biblique”. DBS TIL, 1938, 1320-69.

The select bibliography can be complemented by referring te CB 21-34 and
CG. Dogniez, BS, 27-46.

CHAPTER TWO

THE SEPTUAGINT AS A TRANSLATION

a) An Unprecedented Event

Although today it is taken for granted that the Bible had to be trans-
lated and even has the distinction of being the book translated into
the largest number of languages,' nevertheless the LXX, the first
biblical translation, was an unusual and unparalleled event in the
ancient world. In the West, the translating tradition really began
with the Romans when faced with the Greek literary legacy which
they considered to be culturally superior. However, the Grecks thought
that their literature was completely sclf-suficient and the curiosity
aroused by countries such as Egypt or by oriental religious move-
ments such as Zoroastrianism never caused them to learn those lan-
guages. Herodotus spread the image of an enigmatic Egypt among
the Greeks, and in the Hellenistic period there arose a whole pseude-
pigraphic literature composed in Greek, but none of these works
went back to the original by translating the Gathas,” for example.
Thus the translation of the Jewish Pentateuch into Greek in the 3rd
century BCE can be considered an event without precedent in the
ancient world, of extreme importance for the history of our civili-
sation. For it to happen, several determinative processes of very
different character had to converge. It could only arise from within a
common cultural background created over centuries, with some par-
ticular ideological foundations and with the confluence of favourable
historical circumstances. There existed from ancient times a common

' Translated into about 2,000 languages, and in the last fifty years into over 200
pre-literary primitive languages.

* Hymns dedicated to the exaltation of Zoroaster’s reform in Persia in the 7th—6th
centuries Bok. See 5, P. Brock, The Phenomenon of the Septuagint, 14, and E. J.
Bickermann, The LXX as a Translation, 174. At the same time that the translators
of the LXX were beginning their enterprise, the Babylonian priest Berossus was
writing the history of his people, dedicating it to Antiochus I of Syria, and the
Egyptian high priest Manctho was compiling a history of the pharaohs. ‘T’
¢. 280260 scr, under royal auspi tatives of the Oriental peop
to provide the Greek public with authentic information instead of the fables that
were circulating about their origins and history.

THE SEPTUAGINT AS A TRANSLATION 19

Mediterranean culture, and contacts with the East go back to very
much earlier than the Hellenistic period and are revealed not only
through the many borrowings from Semitic into ancient Greek but
even through finds of Mycenaean pottery in Ugarit and in the analy-
sis of mythological constellations.* To the point that in some sense
one can agree with Astour’s words: “Long before Hellenism imposed
itself over the ancient civilisations of the East, Semitism had exer-
cised no less impact upon the young civilisation of Greece. Hellenism
became the epilogue of the Oriental civilisations, but Semitism was
the prologue of Greek civilisation”.*

However, the ideological background that made the translation of
the LXX possible was in germ in Jewish thought itself, as the Torah
which Israel received on Sinai was originally considered to be a
guide for the whole of humankind, since ‘God did not speak in
secret’ (Isa. 45:19). In fact — according to a rabbinic tradition — it
was offered first to the gentiles but they gave it the cold shoulder.
The rabbis also state that Joshua had buried the Law under the
stones of the altar (Josh. 8:30) not only in the original but in all the
languages of the world; the nations received a copy of the Law, but
after reading it they paid it no attention.

In respect of the LXX, in the Talmud we find the statement that
the only foreign language allowed for the transcription of the Law
scroll is Greck, as it is proved to be the one that translates it best.®
Even so, as we shall see in the next chapter, there is no lack of
negative judgements in rabbinic literature about that translation.

On the other hand, for the Jews of the diaspora, once they had
abandoned the language of their fathers, the only way to preserve
the religious legacy of their ancestors was to translate it into the
foreign language that they uscd. The danger of losing this cultural

* See E, Masson, Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris, 1967;
E, Haag, Homer, Ugarit und das Alle Testament, Tubingen, 1962; M. C. Astour, Hellenose-
mitica, Leiden 1965; J. P. Brown, Literary Contexts, H. B. Rosén, L*hébreu et ses rap-
ports avec le monde classique. Essai d’une évaluation culturelle, Paris 1979.

* Astour, Hellenosemitica, 361.

5M. L. Margolis, The Story of Bible Translation, 9-10. The Jewish tradition con-
cerning the revelation on Sinai is universalist. According to that tradition the Law
was presented there to the pagan peoples in several languages; seventy, says Rabbi
Yohanan. See J. Potin, La fete juive de la Pentecile, I Commentaire; LI Textes (targumiques),
Paris 1971, 3111.

© Jerusalem Talmud (ed. M. Schwass, Paris 1930), Meg. 1, 9(8): “Selon R. Simon
b. Gamialicl, est-il dit, la seule langue étrangére permise pour la transcription du
rouleau de la Loi est le grec; car, aprés examen, on a observé que le texte de la
Loi peut le mieux é@tre traduit suffisamment en grec.”

20 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

inheritance had been felt carlier in the communities of Hellenistic
Judaism than in those in Palestine; the latter defended themselves
ideologically from Hellenism by producing apocalyptic literature;
whereas in the diaspora, the Hellenistic communities reacted by tak-
ing the battle to their own camp through the translation of the Torah
into Greek.’ This explains why the translation of the LXX was made
by Jews and for Jews, meaning that it was done by bilingual orien-
tals and not by Greeks. It arose therefore due to the religious needs
of the Jews of Alexandria; liturgical needs on the one hand and edu-
cational needs on the other, due to the special position of Judaism
in the Greek world with a high proportion of Greek-speaking Jews
who did not know the original language of their own scriptures.
Thus the picture painted by the Leter of Ansteas of the circumstances
surrounding the translation of the LXCX in the court of king Ptolemy
is deceptive.® Its purpose was probably to guarantee the authentic-
ity of the Greek version of the Pentateuch against the criticism, which
had already begun to be voiced, that this translation did not reflect
exactly the Palestinian Hebrew text. These differences caused theo-
logical problems in Hellenistic Judaism which the Letter of Aristeas was
trying to confront by stating that the translators used the best Hebrew
manuscripts brought from Jerusalem.

A process of idealising the LXX began which culminated in the
requirement for inspiration which first Philo and later Augustine
claim fer the Greek translation. In this way the differences from
the Hebrew text are safeguarded, since revelation itself could take

7 R. Hanhart, “Zam Wesen der makedonisch-hellenistischen”, 55-57

® See F. J. Foakes and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christiamty, London 1920,
153: “As the Alexandrian grammarians were the interpreters of the classics of Greece
to the world, so the Alexandrian Jews expounded their own literature... The ven-
erable names of Orpheus and of the mysterious Sibyls were attached to hymns and
oracles designed to glorify Judaism in the eyes of the Greeks; and literary frauds
of this description were for a considerable time practised at Alexandria by Jews and
Christians alike.” In various places a whole rang of literary fiction arose with the
aim of showing that the most revered teachers of antiquity were imbued with the
spirit by Hebrew sages. On Hellenistic interpretation or rewriting of the history of
Israel, see N. Fernandez Marcos, “Interpretaciones helenisticas del pasado de Israel”,
CFC 8 (1975), 15786.

* Vita Mosis, I, 37-40. The translators state, kaOdénep évOvordivtes mpoegytevov
obk GAAG GAA, th 8’ obt& ndvteg dvonato. Kai phuata, Hoxep dnoPodéws exdo-
toig copdtus Evnxobvtos (“they prophesied like enthusiasts, not some [saying] one
thing and others another but all the same names and words as if an invisible
prompler were whispering to each”). And he even compares them to Moses, ...
oby Epunvéas éxeivoug GAN iepopdvtas Kad mpopitas npooayopebovtes, oig éEeyéveto

THE SEPTUAGINT AS A TRANSLATION 21

on different forms: one form being the Hebrew text and another the
Greek translation. However, within Judaism and before Philo, the
shortcomings of the translation were noticed and interpreted in a
very different way. The author of the prologue to Sira (132 pce)
apologises for the inadequacy of his translation and adds that often
the Law and the Prophets in Greek are different when compared
with the original.!? Evidence of this unease due to the difference
between the two Bibles, Hebrew and Greek, are: the traces of cor-
rection of the Greck text to fit it to the Hebrew text in use which
can be detected in some pre-Christian papyri and especially in the
fragments of ‘Twelve Prophets from Nahal Hever;'' the new revi-
sions and translations of the LXX started within Judaism; and the
critical work of Origen in his Hexapla and of Jerome in his new
translation, the Vulgate."

Independently of these aims that guided the Jews of the diaspora
in starting the translation of the sacred Hebrew books, the cultural
importance of the LXX also lies in its becoming the best tool for
spreading Christianity, acting as a praeparatio evangelica through the
many proselytes already converted to Jewish monotheism. Beyond
the expectations of the translators, by being adopted by the Church
as the official Bible, it became the main vehicle for the expansion
into the West of oriental Semitic thought.

ovvépapety Aoyiopois eldixpivéot 1 Mavoéws coOapordto avebpeti (“not calling
them interpreters but hierophants and prophets due to the flawless reasoning by
which they emulated the purest spirit of Moses”). See also, Augustine, De Civ. Det,
XVII, 42-43. On the hypothesis of the inspiration of the LXX as discussed by
modern, scholars, see CB, 13, and C. Dogniez, BS, 25.

© ob yap loodvvopel abt& év Eavtoic ‘EBpatoti Acyoueva. Koi Stav petayOF eic
étépav yAdoouv, od pdvov bé todta, GAA Kai adbtdg 0 vdpoc Kai oi npognteton
Kal t& Aoink tiv PipAiwv od pixpiy gyxer Svagopiv év Eovtois Acydueve. (“for these
things said in Hebrew do not have the same force when translated into another
language; and not only that, but even the Law, the Prophecies and the other books
differ not a little when said in their own language”).

"'D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTS 10 (1963), and the critical and
diplomatic edition by E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8
HevXHer): The Seiyal Collection 1, with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft and a con-
tribution by P. J. Parsons, DJD VIII, Oxford 1990.

8 "The dispute between the philological principle and the inspirationist principle
has persisted in key moments of the rebirth of biblical studies and not only in the
dispute between Jerome and Augustine, the latter being a staunch defender of the
LXX against the Vulgate, but later in the positions of Erasmus and Luther. Augustine
describes the disturbances that broke out (in Tripoli) the first time that the book
of Jonah was read according to Jerome’ 's version, because the Old Latin, following
the LXX had translated the plant in Jon. 4:6 as a coloquinth, whereas the Vulgate
identifies it as the ivy, see W. Schwartz, Principles and Problems, 38.

99 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING
b) A Range of Translation Techniques

However, the LXX is not a uniform translation that can be judged
by modern criteria but the result of much trial and error. At first
different equivalents were tried until the most suitable Greek words
prevailed as the most suited for the various Hebrew expressions. ‘The
Greek Pentateuch came to be a rudimentary lexicon for books trans-
lated later, such as Isaiah.'? Something similar was to happen, centuries
later, with the decanting to Latin of concepts from the new Christian
religion; first several terms were tried, many of them imported from
Greck, for the technical terms of Christianity until one of them pre-
vailed and was standardised as the only Latin equivalent.'*

Rather than a single translation, in the LXX one should speak of
a collection of translations depending on the book; even within a
single book, different literary units reflect different translation tech-
niques. Studies of these techniques indicate more than one transla-
tor for each book, although the total number did not come to seventy
or seventy-two as the Letter of Aristeas says.'° For this same reason,
although Swete’s remarks on the LXX as a version'® or Thackeray’s
in the grammar on Semitisms!’ continue to be valid, today their con-
clusions need to be refined, since, for lack of precedents and being
the work of several translators, we find reflected in the LXX a whole

'S See J. Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias, Minster 1934, and
E. Tov, “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of
Other Books”, Mélanges D. Barthélemy, ed. P. Casetti, Freiburg—Géttingen 1981, 577-92.

“ This is what happens with various Christian terms such as “baptism”, “bap-
tist”, “saviour” (see Ch. Mohrmann, Latin vulgaire, latin des chrétiens, latin médiéval, Paris
1955, t8ff., and in general the works of the Nijmegen School), or with the first
romanced bibles in Castilian, sec G. M. Verd, “Las Biblias romanzadas. Critcrios
de traduccién”, Sefarad 31, 1 (1971), 319-51, and M. Morreale, “Vernacular Scriptures
in Spain”, The Cambridge History of the Bible U, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, Cambridge
1969, 465-92.

'§ The theory defended by H. St J. ‘Thackeray, “Ihe Bisection of Books in prim-
itive Septuagint manuscripts”, 775 9 (1908), 88-98, and by J. Herrmann and Fr.
Baumgirtel, Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Sepluaginta, BWAT 5, Berlin 1923, who
propose two different translators for Isaiah and even three for the Twelve Prophets
and Ezekiel, finds few followers today. A large part of the arguments used by these
authors evaporates, since they used manual editions in their studies which attribu-
ted to the original LXX material belonging to later stages of transmission, see
J. Ziegler, “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwoltprophetenbuch”, Beilage zum
Vorlesungsverzeichnis der Staal. Akademie zu Braunsberg-Ostpr. 1934-— 1

'© H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 315-41.

" H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek [, Cambridge 1909,
32H.

THE SEPTUAGINT AS A TRANSLATION 23

gamut of translation techniques which run from literal translation
(including transliteration) to paraphrase, especially in the later writ-
ings, although the usual midrashic expansions and procedures of the
Targums were never used. A global judgement of the LXX trans-
lation, besides being deceptive as the LXX does not reflect this unity
of translation, also has the danger of being conditioned by the kind
of translation for which the researcher is looking. The extreme posi-
tion is taken by those defining the LXX as a targumic paraphrase
conceived for the majority of the Jews who did not know Hebrew.
Taking this line, R. Kittel even stated that the LXX is not a real
translation but a theological commentary.'* However this is only true
at the primary level of the distribution of the material, the titles of
the books of the Pentateuch, the grouping of Samucl’Kings, the re-
titling of Chronicles and Lamentations and the introduction of a new
chronological sequence that places Ruth after Judges and Lamentations
after Jeremiah, and the reinterpretation it presupposes.'? Once we
get into the actual text, as a general rule the translation of the
Pentateuch is faithful to the Hebrew text, more than was thought
at the beginning of the century. And in the light of recent discov-
eries at Qumran, the great divergences in the historical books between
the LXX and the Hebrew have to be interpreted more as a witness
of the pluralism of the Hebrew text before its consonantal fixation
at the synod of Yamnia, c. 100 cx, than as the result of the exeget-
ical preferences of the translators. Ch. Rabin has insisted on this lit-
eral nature of the LXX translation by noting the relative frequency
with which the authors use translations of perplexity (Verlegenhettstiber-
selzungen), even though they make no sense, leaving it up to the reader
to divine or intuit the meaning of the passage. This procedure is
not used in the Targum, and if the translators had really had con-
tact with the Targums they would have adopted midrashic solutions
or theological interpretations for many of these aporiat of the origi-
nal text, some of which continue to be real enigmas for the trans-
lator even today.” Another matter is that the translators of books

"6 Tn a lecture given at the Onientalentag in Leipzig, 1921; see A. Bentzen, Introduction
to the Old Testament, Copenhagen 1952, 76,

' Lor the main differences between the LXX and the Masorctic Text, see O. Mun-
nich, “Le texte de la Septante”, M. Harl ef al, La Bible grecque des Septante, 173-82.

* Ch. Rabin. ‘he ‘Translation Process”, 24, and J. Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur
LXX des Buches Isaias, 13.

24 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

after the Pentateuch used it as a sort of elementary lexicon for
Hebrew~Greek equivalents, as noted above.”! And in general it can
be stated that the biblical Greek adopted by the translators of the
Pentateuch became a sort of sub-language which later translators or
the authors of pseudepigrapha, if they were bilingual, imitated.” This
has to be taken into account for its direct repercussion on the recent
discussion about Semitisms in the New Testament and in biblical
Greek in general.”*

The analysis of the translation techniques of each book or of each
unit of translation has to precede any study of syntax, for often it
has been shown that a different translation of certain Hebrew expres-
sions does not always argue for different translators, since the different
styles, psychologies and tastes for variety of the various authors come
into play.”* The extent of Semitic influence on the translation Greek
is evident in the many transcriptions of proper names and toponyms
even in the Pentateuch, in the many neologisms from the institu-
tions and the religious practices of Isracl, in the tendency to use in
Greek a word similar in sound to the Hebrew word, and in the
many syntactic Semitisms. The translation into Greek of polysemic
Hebrew words often produces an extension of the semantic ficld of
the Greek word in question, creating new meanings: for example,
Gedpiopa. = ‘what is set apart’ comes to denote ‘the offering of first-
fruits’ (Ex. 29:24); c& €6vn as a translation of goyyim comes to mean
‘non-Jews’; &yyehog = ‘messenger’ is used for the heavenly inter-
mediary beings that abound im apocalyptic literature, just as éyph-
yopog = ‘watcher’ denotes a particular type of angel, the ‘irim.”

We also come across Greek words that take on non-Greek mean-
ings due to a confusion of homonyms in Hebrew; this happens with
the verb dyyotebew = ‘to be the closest’, a translation of Hebrew

2 J. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 454%. and note 13.

* Ch. Rabin, “The Translation Process”, 25.

%3 The discussion is based on the analysis of Semitisms (Hebraisms and Aramaisms)
that can be found in works that have only been transmitted in Greek. It is also
possible (or sometimes certain, as there is no Hebrew~Aramaic construction to sup-
port it) that they are Septuagintisms, ie. analogical formations that have been
absorbed by the New Testament through LXX Greck which became the standard
language for religious Jewish-Hellenistic writers.

* See J. Ziegler, “Die Einheit der Septuaginta”.

% See Dan. 4:10 according to @ in the Alexandrian ms.; Lam. 4:14 and | Enoch
1:5 ff,

THE SEPTUAGINT AS A TRANSLATION 25

g@al 1, but in some cases in the passive, according to the dictionary
of Liddell-Scott/Jones, = ‘to be excluded by descent’. As Katz** has
noted, what happens is that the translator of Esdras B' confused the
two Hebrew homonyms ga’al I and I, the second of which means
precisely ‘to be disqualified, to be excluded’. And there are cases of
Semitic loans that through homophony take on the form of existing
Greek words but with a different meaning. Thus in 1 Kgs 18:32, 35,
38 the word /“alé = ‘channel’, translated correctly by bépayaryéc in
other Old Testament passages,”’ is interpreted as OéAacoa probably
through homophony with ¢a/‘ata’ in the Aramaic spoken by the trans-
lators.** And these are only a few lexical examples. Thackeray stud-
ied various aspects of syntax by which the translators tried to establish
a meaning within the Greek system. Possibly one of the more suc-
cessful guesses is the translation of a Hebrew syntagm as alien to
the Greek system as the infinitive absolute to indicate the inevitable
aspect of an action. The first attempts go from literal translation of
the infinitive to translation by an adverb or periphrastic translation
or even omission. However, after these initial attempts, the transla-
tors, in general, opted for one of the following two solutions: (1)
dative of the noun corresponding to the verb in question: Bavét@
GnoBaveioGe for mét tamit of Gen. 2:17 and (2) participle of the same
verb or of a verb close in meaning: rAnOdvov xAnOvvé for the harba
7arbé of Gen. 3:16.

*% P. Walters (formerly Katz), The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their
Emendation, ed. D. Gooding, Cambridge 1973, 149.

7 See Is. 36:2.

* P, Walters, The Text of the Septuagint, 191. ‘The influence of homophony in the
translation of the LXX is a topic discussed in current research. Caird holds that
homophony was one of the translation techniques used by the translators which
influenced the choice of words. At other times it was an ingenious procedure for
extracting a plausible meaning from an otherwise unintelligible text, see G. B. Caird,
“Homocophony in the Septuagint”, Essays in Honor of W. D, Davies, ed. R. Hammerton-
Kelly and R. Scroggs, Leiden 1976, 74-88. Although there are undeniable traces
of this procedure, not all the cases presented by Caird are convincing; see J. Barr,
“Doubts about Homoeophony in the Septuagint”, Yextus 12 (1985), 1-77. On the
relationship between lexicography and translation techniques, E. Tov, “Three
Dimensions of LXX Words”, RB 83 (1976), 529-44; ‘Tov, “Loan-words, Homophony
and Transliteration in the Septuagint”, Bib 60 (1979), 216-36; N, Fernandez Marcos,
“Nombres propios y etimologias populares en la Septuaginta”, Séfarad 37 (1977),
239-59; and J. A. L. Lee, “Equivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXX”, RB
87 (1980), 104-17, can be consulted. Lee insists that al times the translators are
aware of the polysemy of certain words and do not attempt to resolve the ambi-
guity, so that more than one reading of the same text is possible.

26 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

This last procedure is the one that prevailed in the historical books.
However, the two syntagms that ultimately imposed themselves already
enjoyed some authority in classical Greek.”

c) Modern Linguistics and the Translation Process

In the history of research on the LXX there is no lack of mono-
graphs on the translation technique of certain books, especially around
the theory of a double translator for each book, as set out by
Thackeray in 1903;°° works devoted to various sections of the lexi-
con include those by $. Daniel, Jellicoe, Skchan, Zlotowitz, Heater,
Olofsson*! and others such as those by Orlinsky, Fritsch and Soffer
on the anthropomorphisms, with the aim of uncovering the true
theology of the LXX;* finally there are some syntactic analyses
particularly by the Helsinki school.** However, there are no com-
prehensive structural studies, based on modern linguistics, on the
bihngualism of the translators, which would throw light with new
perspectives on the translation process, one of the more complex
phenomena of linguistic expression. And this even though in recent
years we have scen several events that have contributed to the devel-
opment of this areca of language: the emergence of structuralism in
Europe at the beginning of the century with F. de Saussure, the

79H. St J. Thackeray, 4 Grammar of the Old Testament, 47-48.

oH. St J. TL pray, “The Translators of Jeremiah”, 77S 4 (1903), 245-66;
Thackeray, “The ‘Translators of Ezekiel”, 77S 4 (1903), 398-411; Thackeray, “The
‘Translators of the Prophetical Book”, 77S 4 (1903), 578-85; ‘Thackeray, “The Greek
Translators of the Four Books of Kings”, FITS 8 (1907), 262-7 pray, “The
Bisection of Books in Primitive LXX Manus cripts”, JTS 9 (1908), 88-98, And more
particularly see CB 34-37.

3S. Daniel, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Sepiante, Paris 1966; S. Jel-
licoe, “Hebrew~Greck Equivalents for the Nether World: Its Milieu and Inhabitants
in the Old Testament”, Textus 8 (1973), 1-20; P. W. Skehan, “The Divine Name
at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll and in the Septuagint”, BJOSCS 13 (1980), 14-44;
B. M. Zlotowitz, The Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Terms in Relation to God in the
Book of Jeremiah, New York 1981; H. Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique in. the
Book of Job, Washington 1982 (he discovers the technique of interpolating material
from elsewhere in the LXX, usually another part of Job, in the passage bemg trans-
lated); S. Ololsson, God is my Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological
Exegesis in the Septuagint, Stockholm 1990.

® See CB 20.

* 1. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Sepluaginta, Helsinki 1965, and R. Sollamo,
“Some ‘Improper’ Prepositions in the Septuagint and Early koiné Greek”, VT 25,
4 (19 773-83. See also I. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien zur Sepluaginta-Syntax, and
A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators.

THE SEPTUAGINYT AS A TRANSLATION 27

Prague circle and the Copenhagen school; and in the United States
the coincidence of a large number of linguists interested in the rela-
tionship between language and culture; and the transformational~gen-
erative linguistics of N. Chomsky. All the linguistic theories mentioned
have repercussions for the problem of translation. They have been
applied to the translation of the Bible with surprising results as shown
by publications by E. Nida and others.*t Beyond the excessive pub-
licity and the practical results achieved, there is no doubt that the
exercise of translation by using computers has produced important
results in semantic theory and greater precision in the analysis and
evaluation of linguistic equivalences.”

However, prescinding from our opinion concerning the various
linguistic schools of our century, from a functional aspect it seems
clear that the structural and transformational-generative are the most
productive approaches to be applicd to the phenomenon of transla-
tion. The dynamic and gencrative aspects of the language are of
prime importance for the translator who tries to describe the de-
coding processes of the message in the source language to adapt
them to the structures of the target language. As the linguistic sign is
arbitrary and free in nature, some languages make more distinc-
tions than others in ordering the totality of experience. There are no
two languages that completely agree in the linguistic categories by
which they structure reality. Furthermore, these structures differ much
more radically than do the cultural worlds that transmit these extra-
linguistic referents to us. Hence even in the most literal translation
there is an inevitable shortfall or discrepancy between the message
of the source language and what reaches the target language. When
the LXX translates elohim by 986g and yahweh by «bproc, it has only
reproduced in an approximate way and for the Greck-spcaking world
what the Jews understood by the name of their God. In the same
way, Ulfilas used Gothic Gup to translate the Qe6g of the LXX not
because the Goths understood Gup to mean what Jewish Christians
understood by Os6¢ but because this Germanic term could be adopted
as a rough equivalent of the Greek term.

“EL A. Nida, Towards a Science of Transtating; J.-C. Margot, Traducir sin traicionar.
Teoria de la traduccién aplicada a los textos biblicos, Madrid 1987, and V. Garcia Yebra,
Traduccién: Historia _y Teoria, Madrid 1994.

*® See C. Dogniez, BS 9-11, especially E. Tov and B. G. Wright, “Computer-
Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in
the LXX”, Zextus 12 (1985), 149-87.

28 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

Of course this discrepancy, which is inherent to every translation,
is in some way alleviated by the capacity of the context to reabsorb
the semantic discrepancy due to the different arcas of meaning
(oligosemy—polysemy) of the corresponding words in one or other
language especially when one translates mechanically. In any case,
all that has been said, together with the various techniques of mak-
ing the implicit explicit, but which adds no new information, and
still with great reservations about the hypothesis of a different Vorlage,
forces us to look at the debated problem of the theological variants
or the value judgements on the competence of the translators.

These linguistic theories have been fruitful in the translations of the
Bible into modern languages, especially pre-literary primitive languages,
where the technique of dynamic equivalents has its maximum appli-
cation. In the LXX only timid attempts have so far been made, such
as the one by de Waard for the book of Ruth” and by Rabin for
the indefinite subject, and especially by Heller applied to categories
of inflection.” Prior to any study of the theology of the translation
or any induction about the possible different Hebrew Vorlage that the
translators had in front of them, one has to ask oneself to what
extent the divergences from the Hebrew text are conditioned by the
linguistic possibilities of Greek as compared to Hebrew. These require-
ments of the linguistic expression no doubt have theological conse-
quences, but primarily they are linguistic and do not in themselves
imply a ‘concrete exegetic tendency on the part of the translators.
And they have to be taken into account if one wishes to avoid any
type of generalisation that contrasts Semitic thought with Greek
thought or the repeated digressions about Greek anthropocentrism

% For example, it is not possible to ascribe to the translators’ incompetence or
dilettantism the scarce agreement we notice in the LXX between Greek and Hebrew
tenses. It should be noted, instead, that the tenses in Greek correspond only very
vaguely to the Hebrew tenses. And Rabin has examined the particular case of the
indefinite subject in the ancient versions, reaching the conclusion that the differences
in translation are due to stylistic preferences of the target languages in question,
not because the translators had a different Vorlage; Ch. Rabin, “The Ancient Versions
and the Indefinite Subject”, Textus 2 (1962), 60-76. On the other hand, statistical
analysis confirms that the principle of semantic equivalence is retained with a very
high percentage except in those cases where the polysemy of the Hebrew word
allows multiple translations; see B. Kedar-Kopfstein, “Zum lexicalischen Aquivalenz-
prinzip in Bibeliibersetzungen”, ZAH 2 (1994), 133-44,

# J. de Waard, “translation Techniques Used by the Greek Translators of Ruth”,
Bib 54, 4 (1973), 499-515.

% Ch. Rabin, “The Ancient Versions”.

% J. Heller, “Grenzen sprachlicher Entsprechung”.

THE SEPTUAGINT AS A TRANSLATION 29

against Hebrew theocentrism.’” From an examination of the basic
grammatical structures of the language, Heller concludes that the
translators of the LXX had hardly any difficulty in the translation
of pronouns; the obstacles to translating nouns increase in propor-
tion the more abstract they are. However, where the discrepancy
acquires alarming proportions is in the translation of verbs. The pre-
cision in translating the lst person singular pronoun (anf) in the
Pentateuch is in excess of 99%; and this even though in Greek it is
not necessary to make the personal pronoun explicit as the subject.
Nor did they find particular difficulty in translating the person. As
a result, where there is a change of person within respect to the
Hebrew, the passage has to be examined with greater accuracy as
it can reflect an exegetical tendency of the translators and need not
be due exclusively to linguistic change.

After the categories of person and number, the active and passive
are reproduced more faithfully. Most of the changes observed are
due to the fact that Greek lacks the causative form of the verb; but
other cases are due to a different Vorlage or the exegetical attitude
of the translator.

The translation of verbal inflection is much freer than for inflected
nouns. In Indo-European languages, the intensive and the causative
are not morphological categories but semantic; hence the /iphil and
hophal cause the translators particular confusion. Even so, what can
be stated from this analysis of the structures of both languages is
that the translators were not amateurs but did their best to reach
all the precision allowed them in the shift from one linguistic sys-
tem to such a different one. Hasty judgements, such as that the
translators gave clear signals of incompetence, have to be revised in
the light of these criteria. In cach passage where we find one of the
translations called free or paraphrastic the reasons for that transla-
tion have to be examined, whether a particular expression can be

he Denken im Vergleich mit dem Griechischen, Gotin-
sur la pensée hébraique, Paris 1962, or the studies by
G. Bertram, especially “Die religiése Umdeutung altorientalischer Lebensweisheit in
der griechischen Ubersetzung des AT”, ZAW 54 (1936), 153-67; Bertram, “Von Wesen
der LXX-Frémmigkeit”, WO IL, 3 (1956), 274-84; Bertram, “Zur Bedeutung der
Religion der LXX in der hellenistischen Welt”, 7TLZ 92 (1967), 245-50. Recent
studies make it clear that the chasm that some have wished to mark out between
Semitic and Greek thought never actually existed: N. P. Bratsiotis, “Nephes-psyché.
Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprache und der Theologie der LXX”, VTS 15
(1966), 58-89, and L. M. Pasinya, La notion de ‘nomos’ dans le Pentateuque grec, Rome 1973.

See T. Boman, Das hebrii
gen 1968; G. ‘Tresmontant,

30 THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL SETTING

translated literally within the range of possibilities of the language
or whether the interpreter had a different Vorlage before his eyes.
Only in those cases where the two previous explanations fail is it
permissible to consider intentional change by the translator, as the
reflection and crystallisation of the actual theology of the LXX.

SeLecT Brp.ioGRAPHy

Aejmelacus, A., On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, Kampen 1993.

Astour, M. C., Hellenosemitica, Leiden 1965,

Bardy, G., La question des langues dans Véglise ancienne, Paris 1948, 1~78.

Barr, J., The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. MSU XV, Géttingen
1979.

Bickermann, E. J., “The LUXX as a Translation”. PAAZR 28 (1959), 1-39 (reprinted
in Bickermann, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Leiden 1976, 167-201),

Brock, S. P., “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity”. GRBS 20 (1979),
69-87.

~-——, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint”, OS XVII (1972), 11°36.
—-, “Translating the Old Testament”. Jt iy Written, ed. D. A. Carson, 1988,
87-98.

Brown, J. P., “Literary Contexts of Hebrew-Greek Vocabulary”. JSS (1968), 163-91.

Cook, J., “Were the Persons Responsible for the Septuagint ‘Translators and/or
Scribes and/or Editors?”. ZNSE 21 (1995), 45~58.

Coste, J., “La premiére expérience de traduction biblique: La Septante”. La Maison
Dieu 53 (1958), 96-102.

Frankel, Z., Vorstudien zu der Septuaginia, Leipzig 1841, 163-203.

Hanhart, R., “Die Ubersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta als Interpretation”. Mélanges
D. Barthélemy, ed. P. Casetti, 1981, 135~57.

——., “Zum Wesen der makedonisch-hellenistischen Zeit Israels”. Wort, Lied und
Goitesspruch. Beitriige zur Sepluaginta. Festschrift fiir Joseph Ziegler 1, Wurzburg 1972,
49-59.

Harl, M., “Les divergences entre la Septante et le texte massorétique”. M. Harl
et al, La Bible grecque des Septante, 1988, 201-22.

Heller, J., “Grenzen sprachlicher Entsprechung der LXX. Ein Beitrag zur Uber-
setzungstechnik der LXX. auf dem Gebiet der Flexionskategorien”. MIOF 15
(1969), 234-48,

Jellicoe, 8., SMS, 314-29,

Katz, P., “Zur Ubersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta”. WO I] (1956), 267-73.

Lee, J. A. L., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, SCS 14, Chico,
Galif. 1983.

Margolis, M. L., The Story of Bible Translation, Philadelphia 1917 (reprinted in Israel
1970).

Martin, R. A., “Some Syntactical Criteria of Translation Greek”. VT 10 (1960),
295-310.

, Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents. SCS 3, Missoula, Mont.
1974.

Mounin, G., Les problémes théoriques de la traduction, Paris 1963.

Nida, E. A., Towards a Science of ‘Translating, Leiden 1964.

Nida, E. A., and Ch. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden 1969.

Olofsson, S., The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint,
Stockholm 1990.

‘THE SEPTUAGINT AS A TRANSLATION 31

Rabin, Ch., “The Ancient Versions and the Indefinite Subject”. Textus 2 (1962),
60-76.

——— “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint”. Texius 6
(1968), 1-27,

., “Vhe Mechanics of Translation Greek”. JBL 52 (1933), 244-52,

B. J., The Old Testament Text and Versions, Cardiff 1951, 172-88.

, W., Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation, Cambridge 1955,

Sceligmann, J. L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Leiden
1948,

Soisalon-Soininen, L., Studien zur Sepuaginia-Syntax, eds. A. Acjmelaeus and R. Sollamo,
Helsinki 1987.

Sollamo, R., Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint, Helsinki 1979.

Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 315-41.

Talshir, Z., “Linguistic Development and the Evaluation of Translation Technique
in the Septuagint”. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33, Jerusalem 1986, 301~20.

Tov, E., “The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the
Past and Present”. VI Congress of the IOSCS, 1987, —59,

Waard, J. de, “La Septante: une traduction”. Kiudes sur le judaisme hellénistique, eds.
R. Kunizmann and J. Schlosser, Paris 1984, 133-45.

Weissert, D., “Alexandrinian Analogical Word Analysis and Septuagint Translation
‘Techniques”. Textus 8 (1973), 31-44.

For further bibliography, see CB 16-20 and C. Dogniez, BS 47-52.

PART ‘TWO

THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

CHAPTER THREE

THE LETTER OF PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER
ANCIENT SOURCES

a) The Jews of Alexandria

The diaspora or voluntary dispersion of the Jews had already started
at the beginning of the 6th century BCE in connection with the
Babylonian exile. Some Jews fought as mercenaries on the side of
Psammeticus Il (594-589) against Nebuchadnezzar and afterwards
fled to Egypt for fear of the Jews (see Jeremiah 42-43). In Egypt,
they founded the military colony in Elephantine in the southern part
of a small island in the Nile, a few kilometres north of the first
cataract. This Jewish settlement became famous for the many legal
papyri found there in 1906-07, among them the oldest translation
into Aramaic (end of the 5th century sce) of the Book of Ahigar.
However, the diaspora only gained importance in the Hellenistic
period. Shortly after the conquest by Alexander (332 scx) and the
foundation of Alexandria (331 sce) the presence of many Jews is
already noticeable in Egypt and particularly in that city. According
to the Letter of Aristeas (§§12-13), when Ptolemy I Lagos (323-283)
occupied Palestine in 312 Bag, he took to Egypt as slaves many
Jewish prisoners of war. His son Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283-246)
granted them freedom. Philo of Alexandria (Contra Flaccum, 43) speaks
of a million Jews resident in Egypt. However, this figure seems to
be exaggerated and historians calculate about two hundred thousand,
half of them residing in Alexandria. They were not ruled by the law
of the polis but were organised as their own ethnic group within the
state, presided over by an ethnarch and governed by the gerousia or
Gouncil of Elders, a senate with seventy-one members. Hellenisation
occurred not only at the level of language but also with respect to
culture as can be seen from the onomasticon and the offices and
professions they carried out.' Whereas contacts with their original

' TD). Rokeah, “Prosopography of the Jews in Egypt”, Appendix II, ie Hi, 1964,
167-96. See also V. Tcherikover, “The Ptolemaic Period (323-30 sc) . CPy I,
1957, 1-47; H. Hegermann, “The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age”, The Canibridge

36 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

homeland by means of pilgrimages to Jerusalem on the chief feasts
and the annual tribute to the Temple kept their traditions alive, the
opening to Hellenistic Judaism and its oriental attraction captivated
many proselytes from the Hellenistic surroundings.
In imitation of the Greeks, the Jews of the Hellenistic period also
cultivated a series of new literary forms such as writing history and
even publicity with the purpose of presenting Judaism to a Hellenised
society, philosophy and epic, tragedy and even the novel.? However,
of all the Jewish-Hellenistic production preserved, without any doubt
whatsoever the main contribution was the translation of the Hebrew
Bible into Greek. A result of this unique event was also the pro-
duction of new books in Greek, Greek expansions of some Hebrew
books, and a whole series of pseudepigraphic literature in Greek
which grew in the shadow of the Bible translated into Greck.?

b) Description and Contents of the Letter

The document that claims to describe the origin and circumstances
surrounding the translation of the LXX is the Letter of Aristeas. It is
a pseudepigraphic writing in the form of a letter by the supposed
author, Aristeas, to his friend Philocrates. However, as in so many
cases in antiquity,‘ it is in fact a literary fiction that conceals a treat-
ise with several topics on events of the past with a strong dose of
indoctrination about the Jewish people. The situation of Jews in the
diaspora, living in Alexandria in a hostile environment, very soon
gave rise to a whole range of propaganda literature against the

History of Judaism, 1989, 115-66, and P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria IIL, Oxford
1972.

2 N. Walter, “Jewish-Greek Literature of the Greek Period”, Cambridge History of
Judaism, 1989, 385-408.

* Those books which do not appear in the Hebrew Bible are called ‘apocrypha’
in Protestant tradition and ‘deuterocanonical’ by Catholics. However, it is not casy
to agree on either the name or the classification of this literature and even less on
parabiblical literature commonly called pseudepigrapha or intertestamental since the
boundaries between the various literary forms and the actual manuscript transmis-
sion are not always clear. A good example is provided by the treatment this liter-
ature receives in two recent works: M. Delcor, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
of the Hellenistic period”, The Cambridge History of Judaism, 1989, 409-503, and M. E,
Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Assen~Philadelphia 1984, 33-184
and 283-442.

* For example, the letters of Seneca and Ciccro, which are really treatises on re-
Jevant topics in the form of a letter; see N. Fernandez Marcos, “Letter of Aristeas”, 13.

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 37

Hellenistic world, among which our letter must be included.) This
work, which has reached us in twenty-three manuscripts, has no
superscriptio. Tt usually appears as a prologue in a series of Byzantine
minuscule manuscripts that contain a catena (biblical text and con-
tinuous commentary by various Fathers) to the Octateuch. Josephus
calls it td “Apiotatov BiBAtov (‘the book of Aristeas’)® and Eusebius
refers to it in the following terms: xepi tficg Epunvetas tod tv Tovdatev
véuov (‘on the translation of the Law of the Jews’).’ The word
émiotoAn occurs for the first time in ms. Parisinus 950 of the Paris
National Library (14th century). In book 12 of the Antiquities Josephus
paraphrases two-fifths of the letter, rewriting the story in Attic style;*
and Eusebius, in books 8 and 9 of the Praeparatio Evangetica, extracts
about a quarter of the content of the letter. The indirect tradition
of Eusebius is valuable in transmitting to us virtually the same text
as in the manuscripts but several centuries earlier, given that the
oldest date to the 11th century.

Tt is not casy to summarise the contents of the letter. It describes
the origin, purpose and result of the mission of the writer Aristcas
(one of the three envoys) together with the high priest of Jerusalem,
Eleazar. The king of Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus, commissions his
librarian Demetrius of Phalerum to collect in Alexandria, by pur-
chase or translation, all the books of the world. Aristeas is present
at the interview between the king and the librarian and can prove
how the former expresses his wish to include in this great collection
a copy of the Jewish Law translated into Greek. With this aim he
orders a letter to be written to the high priest of the Jews to draw
up a team of competent translators (§§1—21). To win the high priest’s
favour, Aristeas suggests that the king concede freedom to 100,000
Jewish slaves, prisoners of war, and in the letter includes a document
of manumission (§§22-25).° There is an exchange of letters and cre-
dentials between Ptolemy and Eleazar with a detailed description of

° See H. Willrich, “Urkundenfiilschung”, and N. Fernandez Marcos, “Interpreta-
ciones helenisticas del pasado de Israel”, CFC 8 (1975), 157-86.

® Josephus, Ant. XII, 100.

7 Eusebius, Praeparatio Evang. IX, 38.

® A. Pelletier, Mavius Foséphe adapltateur.

* H. Liebesny has published, translated and commented on one of the docu-
ments which might have been a source for the redactor of the letter in this pas-
sage: see “Ein Erlass des Kénigs Ptolomaios I Philadelphos tiber die Deklaration
von Vieh und Sklaven in Syrien und Phénikicn (PER Inv. N. 24. 552 gr.)”, Aegyptus
16 (1936), 257-91.

38 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

each gift; the texts of the letters are also included in the writing.
Ptolemy’s letter to the high priest asks him to send six old men from
each tribe (6 x 12 = 72), men of exemplary life and versed in the
Law. Next, the list of translators is given in which the predominance
of Semitic but Hellenised names is evident (§§47-50).'° Ptolemy’s
delegation describes their impressions of Jerusalem, the templc, the
cult, the city and the whole of Judah (§§83-120). Aristeas questions
the high priest on some Jewish laws and he explains their deeper
meaning (§§128-70)."'

Text, translators and delegation return successfully to Egypt where
they are immediately received by the king, contrary to every cus-
tom in Greek courts. Ptolemy prepares a seven-day banquet for his
Jewish guests. Here the author uses the genre of the symposium to
describe the banquet in the royal court; this symposium takes up
most of the letter (§§187-292). The king questions them on the
scriptures and proposes an enigma (hid@) to cach of the old men,
which they solve brilliantly, to the surprise and joy of the audience.'”
Next come short paragraphs devoted to the actual translation and
its results (§§301-16). The worthy guests, who are taken to an island,
surrounded by silence and provided with everything necessary, com-
plete the translation in seventy-two days as a sign of remarkable
coincidence.'* Every morning they wash their hands in the sea fol-
lowing Jewish usage, as testimony that they had done nothing wrong.'*

At the close, Demetrius gathers together the whole Jewish community

' Tsserlin wishes to see in this predominance of Palestinian names over Egyptian

an indication that perhaps there is a basis of truth and that the description of the
delegation is not a complete invention: see “The Names of the 72 Translators”.
However, the use of Palestinian names belonging to the twelve tribes could be quite
intentional within the literary fiction to which the letter belongs.

"' On this part of the Zeller, see N. Ferndndez Marcos, “El ‘sentido profindo’
de las prescripciones dietéticas judias”.

"A procedure which was very common the in Oriental Hellenistic courts, as
can be seen in the passage about the three bodyguards of King Darius (I Ezra
3-5). On the connection between questions about wisdom and courtly education,
sce F. Cantera and M. Iglesias, Sagrada Biblia, Madrid 1975, 603-604, and L. M.
Wills, The Few in the Court of the Foreign King, Minneapolis 1990.

ovuvérvye 5& obtmc, Hote Ev hugpats EPSourKovta Svoi teAetwOivon t& tic
hetoypagiic, olovel Katd xpdQeatv tivo tod torodtov yeyevnuévov (“The outcome
was such that in seventy-two days the business of translation was completed, just
as if such a result was achieved by some deliberate design carried out as if it were
according to a goal previously fixed,” Letter of Aristeas §307).

4 Siesdpovv Sé Sti paptipidv got: tod pndév eipydoOor Kaxdv (“They explained
that it is evidence that they have done no evil,” Letter of Aristeas §306).

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 39

and reads the translation aloud and it is greeted with general acclaim,
everyone promising to utter a curse — as was the custom — against
anyone who removed anything from the text or added anything.’”

c) Historicity

Since the letter as a whole was accepted as historical in antiquity,
in successive versions legendary elements were added. It was not
until the modern age that the first doubts arose concerning the let-
ter’s authenticity. The first to voice reservations about it was the
Spanish humanist Luis Vives (1492-1540), commenting on the pas-
sage in Augustine (De Cw. Dei XVIU, 42) on the translation of the
LXX."* In 1606, J. Justus Scaliger (1540~1609) had the same doubts
and a century later, H. Hody was indifferent to the statements in
the letter.!”

Editions and translations into modern languages are listed exhaus-
tively in A. Pelletier’s introduction, the most complete and most
recent edition of this text.'? All the same it is worth noting the edi-
tion by L. Mendelsohn and P. Wendland in the Teubner collection
(Leipzig 1900), to whom we owe the division of the letter into 322
paragraphs, generally accepted today, and the edition by H. St John
Thackeray, printed as an appendix to Swete’s Greek Old Testament,
also in 1900."° As for translations into modcrn languages, there are
several in Italian, French, English, German and one in Spanish, in
Modern Hebrew and in Japanese.”

4% éetevoav drapdcaco, coOds Hog abtois gor, ef tig SiaoKkevdcer mpooteig
F} petapépwv tt td Gbvodov tay yeypappéevoy H moiobpeEvos deaipesiv, KaAdds todto
mptooovtec, iva Suk mavtoc cévva. Koi pévovta pvoAdoontar (“they commanded
that a curse should be laid, as was their custom, on anyone who should alter the
version by any addition or change to any part of the written text, or any deletion
cither. This was a good step taken, to ensure that the words were preserved com-
pletely and permanently in perpetuity,” Letter of Aristeas §311).

6 L, Vives, In XXH libros de Cwitate Dei Commentaria, Basel 1522, on book XVIIL, 42.

"J. J. Scaliger, Animadversiones in Chronologica Eusebii, Leiden 1606, 122-25, and
H. Hody, “Contra historiam LXX interpretum Aristeae nomine inscriptum disser-
tatio”, in De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Versionibus Graecis, et Latina Vulgata, Oxford
1705, 189.

‘SA. Pelletier, Letire d’Aristée a Philocrate.
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 531-606.

S andez Marcos, “Letter of Aristeas”; by A. Kahana, in Ha-

Ha-hisonim, 1-71; and by Y. Sakon in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha V, 'Yokyo
15-85 and 283-301. See C. Dogniez, BS 18.

40 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Today the pseudepigraphic genre of the letter and its legendary
nature are accepted without question. But the literary fiction is not
without historical elements however difficult it may be to extract
them by sound source criticism: the date of the translation of the
Pentateuch cannot be put back too far (in fact before direct or indi-
rect association with Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the first half of the
3rd century BCE seems likely, although the work itself was begun by
the Jews of the diaspora and for the Jews and was not an official
undertaking of the Egyptian court). The translation was made basi-
cally for liturgical and didactic, but not expressly literary, reasons,
as can be gathered from a simple comparison of the Pentateuch
with the style of Josephus, Philo and even of the letter we are discuss-
ing. The language of the Pentateuch belongs to the first half of the
3rd century Bce in Alexandria, as the studies by A. Deissmann
have shown. Furthermore, there are the witnesses of Pap Rylands 458
(with fragments of Deuteronomy 23-28) which comes from the 2nd
century BcE, and of Pap Fouad 266 (Dt. 31:36~32:7) from the Ist
century BcE. To these indications can be added the fact that the
Jewish-Hellenistic historian Demetrius, from the end of the 3rd cen-
tury BCE, certainly knew Genesis in Greck.”! The knowledge that we
have from other sources of the reign of Ptolemy II make this hypoth-
esis likely, and in 132 sce the translator of the book of Sira already
alludes in the prologue to the Torah, the Prophecies and other writ-
ings as integral parts of the Alexandrian Bible.”

| See J. Freudenthal, Hellenistiche Studien, 185ff. According to Meecham (‘The
Letter of Aristeas”, 316-24) the author of this letter was familiar with the Greek
Pentateuch as can be shown from a series of allusions and reminiscences. Wevers
however stresses that he only knows the Pentateuch and that no relationship between
Letter of Arsteas 8857-82 and I Kings 6-7 can be established. Instead, the rela-
tionship of Aristeas with Ex. 25:23ff seems beyond doubt (J. W. Wevers, “Proto-
Septuagint Studies”, 63, note 23. The Seed of Wisdom. Fs. T. 7. Meek, Toronto 1964,
58-77). The information from Aristobulus (first half of the 2nd century Bc), trans-
mitted by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evang. XII, 12, |-2, according to whorn there were
partial translations of the Law before the one described here, in which Pythagoras
and Plato inspired the authors, belongs to the Jewish-Christian issue of plagiarism
by Greek writers from Moses and thus has no historical credibility at all: sce
G. Dorival, “histoire de la Septante dans le judaisme antique”, 45-46.

2 sig te thy tod vouov Kal tav xpogntOv Kai tv GAAwv zatpiov PiBAlov
avéyvoov (“for the reading of the Law, the prophets and other books of the ances-
tors”). Van Esbroeck has analysed the Georgian version of the Letter of Aristeas and
in it he finds traces of a document, probably from Jerusalem, used with some
changes by the translator and also by Epiphanius of Salamina in his treatise De
mensuris et pondertbus, 3 and 6: see M. Van Esbroeck, “Une forme inédite de la let-
tre du roi Ptolémée”.

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 41
d) Date of Composition and Sources

The date of the letter is an almost insoluble problem since the opin-
ions of scholars range from the end of the 3rd century pce until
close to the 2nd century cx.’ However, linguistic analysis allows fur-
ther precision, as Bickermann has shown,” from the use of Ptolemaic
titles, analysis of the documents and other formulaic expressions used
as well as from the religious and political tendency of the work, as
Meisner has pointed out. Prominent are glorification of the Hellenistic
ideal of a philanthropic king and the warning against the abuse of
power; in the religious sphere the emphasis given to Jerusalem is
paramount; the idealised description of the cult, the close links between
the communities of Jerusalem and Alexandria, as well as the com-
plete silence on the important cult of Leontopolis are notable.* All
this shows that the author of the letter wishes to distance the
Alexandrian community from the Jews of Onias so that the decade
between 127 and 118 sce seems the most suitable period for the
origin of the letter.” And in any case it is earlier than Flavius
Josephus, given that around 70 cE he rewrites the letter in Antiquities
XIE, 12-118.

The author has used several sources, some already identified, others
more difficult to find due on the one hand to our preserving so
litde of the literary production of Hellenism and on the other to the
pseudepigraphic nature of the writing which tends to disguise and
change the material used. In §31 Hecateus of Adbera is mentioned;
probably the work was used as a basis for the first part or the epi
Toviaiev cited by Josephus in Contra Ap. I, 183-205, falsely attribu-
ted to Hecateus of Abdera, together with other Greek reports of
journeys to Palestine or pilgrims’ guides.” For the symposium passage,

% See 8S. Jellicoe, SMS, 47-52 and G. Dorival, “L’histoire de la Septante dans
le judaisme antique” 41-42.

4 E. Bickermann, “Zur Daticrung des Pseudo-Aristeas”, 121ff: proposes ¢. 145~125
BCE as the most probable date. Momigliano instead opts for 110~100 Bag, see
A, Momigliano, “Per la data e la caratteristica della Lettera di Aristea”, Aegyptus 12
(1932) 161-72, p. 168.

5 N. Meisner, “Untersuchungen zum Aristeasbrief”, 204-17.

%6 A Jewish military colony near Memphis, founded by Onias, see V. A. Tcherikover
and A. Fuks, CPJ I, Cambridge, Mass. 1957, 3ff. See A. F. J. Klijn, “The Letter
of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in Egypt”, 7S 11 (1964-65)
154-58, and S, Jellicoe, “Che Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A
Reexamination”, N7S 12 (1965-66) 144-50.

* N. Meisner, “Aristeasbrief”, 43.

°8'N. Meisner, “Aristeasbrief”, 39.

42 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

which covers more than a third of the whole letter, in most of the
answers the line of thought of ancient Hellenistic treatises called nepi
Baotretac can be followed. The sources of other sections cannot be
traced, but they certainly belong to the topic of this kind of litera-
ture.” To the king’s question of why no Greck historian or poct
mentioned the Jewish Law, the answer is that the Jewish scriptures
cannot be touched by the gentiles, illustrating this by mentioning

when clarifying the sources of this passage: for some the writing
of Pscudo-Hecateus is latent here whereas Bayer suspects that un-
derlying this narrative is the lost writing by Demetrius with the
title xepi dvetpwv in which miraculous cures from Sarapis are de-
scribed, stories which the author of the letter transfers to the God
of the Jews.” The number of seventy-two translators who came from
Jerusalem is to be ascribed to literary fiction, as is the picture it con-
veys of the philological work carried out in Alexandria. Analysis of
the style and translation techniques of the Pentateuch indicate sev-
eral translators or the work of a team supervisor but these could
never number seventy-two. This number, 70/72, is made up by
choosing two for each of the twelve tribes and probably evokes the
seventy old men present at Sinai when Moses received the Law.*!
It is also the total of the members of Sanhedrin, as we shall see. As
for the philological work, the author of the letter transposes to the
event of translation inexact representations about what he thought

of the work carried out in Alexandria: ic. neglected texts were
restored and transformed into genuine texts through discussion and
comparison carried out by the philologists.*

* N. Meisner, “Aristcasbrief”, 40, and P. Hadot, “Fiirstenspiegel”, RAC 8 (1972),
555-631, pp. 587-89.

® EK. Bayer, Demetrios Phalereus der Athener, Stuttgart-Berlin 1942, LO2fT.

4 See Ex, 24:1 and G. Dorival, “La Bible des Septante: 70 ou 72 traducteurs?”,

® See G. Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II. Aristeas on the translation of the Torah”, -
JSS 4 (1959), 109-26, and the disputed passage from the letter: twyyéver yap
“EBpaikoic ypéppact Kot peovi Acyouevo., cwedgatepov Sé Koi oby do brdpyer,
ceotpovtat, Kadds bxd tav eiddtov npocavapépeton (“for these [works] are writ-
ten in Hebrew characters and language. But they have been transcribed [lit. indi-
cated] somewhat carelessly and not as they should be [lit. as is the case], according
to the report of the experts” Letter of Aristeas §30). On the discussion of the mean-
ing of ceonpavto., see D. W. Gooding, “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review
of Recent Studies”, VF 13 (1963), 357-79. Gooding proves that oeoquavto clearly
means ‘were written’, not ‘were translated’ or ‘were interpreted’. Dorival suggests
translating it as ‘ont été traduits oralement’ (see G. Dorival, “L’histoire de la Septante
dans le judaisme antique”, 54), although he admits the culty that this meaning

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 43
e) Purpose of the Letter

The purpose of the letter is definitely apologetic. It is more difficult
to determine the main recipients that the author has in mind, the
Jews themselves (and in this supposition either the Palestine com-
munity or the Alexandrian diaspora), the Greeks to let them know
Israel’s glorious past, or the court of the Ptolemics. This detail affects
the debate about the origins of the LXX. Thus Kahle’s theory, that
the letter was the endorsement of the official unified version imposed
by the Jewish authorities in the same period when the document
was written, after a long period in which various Greek versions

were in circulation, like the Targums, has to be rejected as unusual.”
On the other hand, P. Lagarde and his successors, although accept-
ing the legendary elements shown by the letter, maintain the refer-
ence to a single event, the translation of the Pentateuch in the 3rd
century BCE, as a historical nucleus. Klijn has stated that is a pro-
paganda writing in favour of the original LXX against a revision
made ¢. 140 sce in the Jewish colony of Leontopolis which was in
competition with the one in Alexandria.** All the same, although
more and more traces of the revision of the LXX continue to appear
from a very early period, we know too little about the Jewish set-
tlement at Leontopolis to be able to defend this hypothesis without
excessive imagination. For Stricker the letter refers to a royal under-
taking by Ptolemy which consisted of codifying Hellenistic poetry
and all the religions practised in Egypt with the aim of placing them
under official control; for this it was necessary to translate the Egyptian
(Manetho), Babylonian (Berossus) and Jewish (LXX) religious texts.”

of the verb is not accepted in the dictionaries. In my view, however, a new mean-
ing of the verb has been introduced from synagogal practice as known from trans-
lations into Aramaic. However, in the case of the LXX we have no witness to this
practice and its translation techniques are very different from those used in the
Targum, As Dorival himself admits (tid. 51-52), ancient witnesses on the existence
of partial translations of the Bible before the LXX cannot be accepted. On the
work and techniques of the Alexandrian philologists in respect of classical texts,
especially by Homer, see R. Pfeifer, History of Classical Scholarhsip. I: From the Beginnings
to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford 1968, See also J. Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish
Bible and the Christian Bible, translated from the Spanish by W. G. E. Watson,
Leiden—New York-Kéin 1998, 137-41.

“8 Por a more detailed explanation of his theory see the following chapter.

“ALF. J. Klijn, “he Letter of Aristeas”.

% B. H. Stricker, De Brief van Aristeas. De hellenistische codificaties der pracheleense gods-
diensten, Amsterdam 1956. Rost again insists on the idea that the Greek translation

44 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

However, the success of the Greek Bible within Hellenistic Judaism
is difficult to explain if the translation had been due to a coercive
act based on the Hellenising politics of the Ptolemies.”

Howard, instead, maintains that the letter is not propaganda writ-
ing against Hellenism, nor is it trying to make one particular trans-
lation prevail over another, whether this is earlier than or contemporary
with the letter. Instead, what it is trying to defend is the Judaism of
the diaspora against the attacks of Palestinian Judaism. The Palestinian
Jews accused their brothers in Alexandria of using an inaccurate
translation of the Pentateuch and so were not fulfilling the Law.”
However it cannot be ignored that although these differences between
the Hebrew and Greek texts were very upsetting, there never was
a real opposition between the theology of the diaspora and that of
Palestine. This is what Hanhart states in setting the LXX transla-
tion in Alexandria at the same level as the production of apocalyp-
tic material in Palestine, as the special tool which Judaism used to
defend itself from Hellenism.™

f) The Letter in Jewish Tradition

The information and commentaries about the origin of the Greck
translation of the Bible in Jewish sources are later than the Letter
of pseudo-Aristeas, but they may preserve some nucleus of earlier
tradition alluding to the historical circumstances surrounding the
translation. K. Miiller has examined these data in a monograph and
published tthe results in a recent article.’ The texts are taken from
the treatises of the Talmud and Tosephta which include the same
tradition with several variations. The information revolves around
the following topics:

has its origin for reasons of public law and not because of the needs of Greek-
speaking Jewish communities: see L. Rost, “Vermutungen iiber den Anlass zur grie-
chischen Ubersetzung der Tora”, in H. J. Stoebe (ed.), Wort-Gebot-Glaube, ATANT
59, Zurich 1970, 39-44. The same idea is reflected in D. Barthélemy, “Pourquoi
la Torah a-t-elle été traduit en grec?”, On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of
Eugene A. Nida, The Hague 1974, 23-41, especially pp. 29ff.

% R. Hanhart, “Fragen um die Entstehung der LXX”, VT 12 (1962) 139-63.

*% G. E. Howard, “The Letter of Aristeas”, 8-9.

33) R, Hanhart, “Das Wesen der makedonisch-hellenistischen Zeit Israels”, Wort,
Lied und Gottesspruch, 49-58.

% K. Miller, “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten”.

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 45

1. The number of translators.

2. The number of changes inserted by the translators.

3. The fact that the translation is incorrect and comprises a sort of
profanation together with a with some political unrest against Ptolemy.

With respect to the number of translators, the sources fluctuate
between five (Abot of Rabi Nalan, 37; Séferim 1, 7), seventy (Sefer Tora
1, 8) and seventy-two (Séferim 1, 8; Maseket Sdferim 1, 8).

The rejection of the translation by the Jews is evident in two rab-
binic statements:

1. The day the Law was translated was as hard for Israel as the
day they made the golden calf; for the Torah could not be trans-
lated according to all its demands.”

2. On the 8th day of Zebet*' the Law was written in Greek in the
days of king Ptolemy. And for three days darkness came over the
world.”

Also the number of changes made by the translators differs accord-
ing to source: ten in Tanhuma Semot 22 and Abot of Rabi Natan 37;
thirteen in Séferim 1, 8 and Sefer Tord 1, 9; and eighteen in Exodus
Rabé 5, 5 and in the Midras hagadol to Dt. 4:19. However, as hap-
pens in the case of the Tiggiéné Séferim the attempts at an exact list
are expressions of late reworkings of the tradition."’ The kernel of
truth which these rabbinic details reflect is that very soon differences
were felt between the LXX and the Hebrew text. According to
Miiller,"" of the changes quoted five are attested in the LXX and
the other three show contact with it.” The other changes have to

“ Corresponding to December—January; sec E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 Bo-Ap 135), revised and edited by G. Vermes
and F. Millar, 1, Edinburgh 1973, Appendix III, The Jewish Calendar, 587-601.

® Gaonic additions to Megillat Ta’anit, 13. However, as we have seen in the pre-
vious chapter, rabbinic tradition did not completely oppose the Greek translation.
A remark included in the Jerusalem ‘Talmud, Meg. 1, 9, considers how Greek is
the only language into which the Law can be translated in the most suitable way.

* S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 1962, 29, “Corrections
of the Soferim”.

4K. Miiller, “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten”, 73ff.

% Gen. 2:2 év th hpépa ch fern; Ex. 4:20a émi tmoGino; Ex. 12:40b kal év yf
yavaav; Num, 16:15b émO@bunpo = ‘object of value’ instead of hamor = ‘ass’, as a
tendency to distance this animal from important people; and Lev. 11:5a tov dacbn0d0. =
‘hare’ for “amebet and not tov ayov — as Baraita Meg. 9b of the Babylonian Talmud
explains ~ so that they would not say that the Jews, in order to mock Ptolemy’s
wife (from the Lagides family), inserted her name among the unclean animals, The

46 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

be attributed to the contemporary context of ever-changing Jewish
exegesis. The persistent memory of these changes made by king
Ptolemy comprises the strongest support for the hypothesis that the
translation of the LXX was due to a violent act based on the pol-
itics of Hellenisation by Ptolemy IL, indicated in the Letter of Aristeas."
Some rejection and Jewish opposition to the LXX translation for
fear of profaning the Torah is evident almost from the very start
and, of course, before Christianity adopted it as the Bible of the
Church. This is latent in the prologue to Sira,”” in certain passages
of Philo and even in the Letter of Aristeas (8312-16). In this passage
Demetrius replies to king Ptolemy that no Greek author has dared
to cite the Jewish Law because it was sacred and untouchable, and
he confirms it citing two warning miracles: Theopompus™ spoke and
Theodectes* remained blind in punishment for his daring (xd tod
Beod mAnyévtes §313). Furthermore, Theopompus was told the rea-
son for his punishment in a dream: it was an indiscretion to deliver
divine things to the profane. Probably the same reluctance and fear
of profanation are latent in the paragraph of the Ictter which explains
why the translators wash their hands every morning when saying
the prayer, ‘as witness that they are doing nothing wrong’;®! and in

changes mentioned which indicate contacts with the LUXX are Gen. 1:1 (év é&pxii);
2:2a; 18:12b; and 49:6b. On this translation of the changes inserted by the trans-
lators, see G. Veltri, Eine Tora fiir den Konig Talmai, 22 112. Veltri concludes that
most of the alterations are exegetical changes which presuppose the Masoretic text
and not a different Vorlage, a sort of Proto-Septuagint, as E. Tov, “The Rabbinic
Tradition”, asserts,

© Bovdopvévav 8 huav Koi tobtoig yapilecbar Kal mor toig KaTé Thy cikovpévny
Jovbatorg Kal toig peténerto., mponphweda. tov vonov dpav pebepunverBivon ypcp-
paow "EAnvikoig & tév map’ dudv Acyouévev EBpaixGv ypaupétov, iv’ dx&pyn
xal tadta nop’ hiv év PiPAroOhn obv toig GAAors Pastdikois PiPAtots (“It is our
wish to grant favours to them and to all the Jews throughout the world, including
future generations. We have accordingly decided that your Law be translated into
Greek letters from what you call the Hebrew letters, in order that they too should
take their place with us in our library with the other royal books”). See Leiter of
Anisteas § 38. ,

© ob yap ioodvvapel ordth ev Eavtoic ‘EBpaiotl Aeydueva Kat Grow perayOf eis
érépav yAdooov (“for these matters do not have the same force said in Hebrew as
when they are translated into another language”).

“ A disciple of Isocrates, ¢. 378-300 scx.

“ Orator and tragic poet, ¢. 375-334 pcr. On this type of warning miracle in
antiquity as a divine punishment, especially in the context of incubation, see
N. Fernandez Marcos, Los Thaumata de Sofronio, Madrid 1975, 180-92.

t& Beta... eig Kowobs dvOpdxove Expéperv, (Letter of Aristeas § 313).

" Letter of Aristeas § 306.

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 47

Philo’s Vita Mosis 2, 36, where the old men stretch their hands to
heaven begging God not to let them fail completely.”

According to Miiller,** the fluctuation in the number of transla-
tors (72/70/5) is best explained within the framework of rabbinic
reflections on competence to make changes in a copy of the Torah.
As a result of the rabbinic theories on the genesis and composition
of the supreme court (bét din haggddél) only 72/70 or five members
could be responsible for the divergences of the LXX, a common
number in the commissions of the great Sanhedrin. It would thus
be a projection into the past of the condition of the rabbinic period
connected with the commissions responsible for making any change
in the Torah. Others, however, think that the number five is due
to giving that numerical value to the letter 4 of the article in haz-
Zgenim (‘the ancients’). \

The author of the extra-canonical treatise Sépherim solved this
difference of tradition as follows: two translations of the Law were

made by king Ptolemy, the first completed by five ancients; and the
day the Law was translated was as hard for Isracl as the day they
made the golden calf. The other translation made by seventy-two
ancients with divine help was received with great success.”

g) Later Legend concerning the Origin of the Septuagint

The complex and ambiguous reception given to the Greek version
in rabbinic tradition is in contrast with the enthusiasm that it roused,
right from the start, in Hellenistic Judaism and in Christian tradi-
tion. In Greek-speaking Jewish circles and among Christians writers,

2. qitobpevor tov Oedv pi) Siapaptety tig mpooBécemc, Vila Mosis Ul, 36.
chen Nachrichten”, 9Of,

‘ ‘ain sect out a critique of the rabbinic information
connected with the origins of the LXX. The main conclusions of his monographs
can be summarised in the following points: (1) in rabbinic wadition the LXX was
never considered to be a Targum but a Writing by King Ptolemy; (2) there was
no rejection of the LXX by rabbinic Judaism and Christianity did not influence
the Jewish appraisal of that version. The shift from a positive to a negative appraisal
did not occur until the Gaonic period; (3) basically, the translation with all its
requirements was considered to be impossible. Hence some accounts consider it to
be a failure and compare it with the golden calf; and (4) the changes made by
King Ptolemy belong to rabbinic exegesis not to the actual text. These changes
reflect the difficulties of the Masoretic text and do not refer to a different Hebrew
text used by the translators.

48 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

the content of the letter was further developed such that legendary
clements were progressively added until Jerome’s verdict was reached
on the assignment of the translators.

Still in the Alexandrian circle, Philo develops his inspiration theory
about the translation, making it equivalent to the original Hebrew.*°
Several new clements are inserted which are added to those men-
tioned in the letter: Eleazar is high priest and king of Judea; Aristeas’s
request is attributed to divine inspiration. It is now the translators who
choose the place to make the translation and the Jsland of Pharos is
expressly mentioned, though it is not specified in the letter. Once
enclosed there, the translators “as if inspired by the deity, prophe-
sied not some one and others another but all the same names and
words, as if an invisible prompter were whispering them to each”.*®
And further on he insists that both the original and the transla-
tion are a single text and that the translators are prophets and hiero-
phants like Moses.*’ Finally he tells us of an annual feast on the
Island of Pharos which commemorated such an auspicious event.®

In the 2nd century ce, Justin confuses Eleazar with king Herod
(37 Bce-4 ce!) and states that Ptolemy sent an embassy to Jerusalem
to obtain the ‘books of prophecies’.°° In the Dialogue with Tryphon 78,
7 the translation is not only of the Pentateuch but extends to the
whole Old Testament.

8 For an account of his thoughts on. the narrative in the Letter of Aristeas, see
Philo, Vite Mosis Tl, 25-44, especially 36~37.

© KaBdaep évBovoidvtes mposertevov obk GAAa Ado, th 8 odte mivtes d6vopota
Kon Efpota, boxep broBodéac Exckotorg copatas évnxodvtos, Vita Mosis I, 37. Note
the use of the verb év@ovarice = ‘to be in ecstasy, inspired or possessed by a deity’,
a technical term in classical antiquity for inspiration, sce Plato, fon 535¢-536b; Phaedo
253a, etc.; see, similarly L. Gil, Los antiguos y la inspiraciin poética, Madrid 1966. And
for the concept of inspiration in Philo, see A. Pifiero, La ‘Theopneustia’ biblica en los
primeros siglos. Doctoral diss. Madrid, Gomplutensian Univ., 1974. Note also that
daofodetc = ‘he who suggests, reminds’, is used for the prompter in the theatre
(Plutarch 2.813ff}, probably the image alluded to here.

57 Philo, Vita Mosis II, 40: iepopcvrng = the one who initiates (someone) into the
rites and introduces (him) into the worship of the mystery religions.

88 Philo, Vita Mosis Il, 41.

%® $te SE ItoAguaiog 6 Aiyurtiov Bactheds, BiBAvobjKnv Kateckedate Koi to
néviwv évOpdnov ovyypénuata cuvéyew éxerpoOn, nvOdpevos Kol tav mpognterdrv
robtwv, nposénepye TH TOV ‘lovdaiay tote Bactrebovtt "Hpady dEidv SromepqOfivar
adt® thks PiBAovg tHv xpognterav (“and when Ptolemy, the king of the Egyptians,
organised the library and proposed collecting together all the writings of all men,
when he heard about these prophecies, sent an embassy to Herod, at that time
king of the Jews, asking him to get them to send him the books of prophecies”),
Justin, Apologia I, 31.

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 49

Irenaeus sets the event in the time of Ptolemy Lagos (305-285
BcE) and the request for exemplars of the Law is addressed to the
people of Jerusalem.” After the translators were separated (without
saying how), when the translations are compared in the king’s pres-
ence they turn out to be identical, so that even the Gentiles who
are present had to accept that the Scriptures had been translated
by divine inspiration. Already there appears the apologetic motif of
the superiority of the LXCX, especially to the more recent Jewish ver-
sions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, some of which had
been in circulation since the time of Irenaeus.

The anonymous author of the Exhortation to the Greeks’ adds — as
proof that his apologetic account which is intended for the Greeks
is not a fable ~ that when he visited Alexandria and the Island of
Pharos he himself could see the remains of the cells of the translators
and that the natives told all this as the tradition of their ancestors.

Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian also refer to the Letter of
Aristeas in terms not very unlike those used by Irenaeus.” And it is
paradoxical that towards the end of the 2nd or at the beginning of
the 3rd century cr, the Letter of Aristeas, a Jewish propaganda docu-
ment which recommends the Greek translation of the Pentateuch,
has become the principal witness for the defending the whole LXX,
now adopted by Christianity as its official Bible.

The legend would continue to grow or the same topics would be
repeated,® until Jerome, without rejecting the historicity of the Letter
of Ansteas, was to ridicule the details of the later legend, setting the
office and function of the translators in their true limits. In the pro-
logue to his Vulgate translation of the Pentateuch he set out the

Irenaeus, Ady. Haereses III, 21, 2. Fragments preserved in Eusebius, Hist. Ecc.
V, 8, 11-15.

®" Cohortatio ad Graecos, 13, a work attributed to Pseudo-Justin in the 3rd century
cE, see PG 6, 241326.

® Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1, 22, 148; Tertullian, Apologeticum 18, 5-9.
The latter states that the Hebrew exemplars used for the translation could be seen
in the Serapeum of Alexandria.

® According to Epiphanius (310403), De Mens. et Ponderibus, IIL (PG 43, 242),
the 72 old men were shut up in twos from morning to night ( (Coyh Cori Kote
oikiokov) in 36 cells, and 36 canoes brought them each night to feast with the
king. Augustine (354-430), in De Cimitate Dei, XVIU, 42, and XV, 11-13 repeated
the same well-known points. For later authors A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Arisiée a Philocrate,
93-96, can be consulted. And for discussion of these ancient witnesses, see
P. Wendland, “Zur altesten Geschichte der Bibel in der Kirche”, ZNW 1 (1900),
267-99.

50 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

following unambiguous details: “Et nescio quis primus auctor Sep-
tuaginta cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suo extruxcrit, quibus divisi
eadem scriptitarint, cum Aristheus ciusdem Potolomei txepoomortis
et multo post tempore Jossepphus nihil tale rettulerint, sed in una
basilica congregatos contulisse scribant, non prophetassc. Aliud est enim
vatem, aliud esse interpretem.* In this and in other prologues to the
Vulgate he also specifies that the original version of the Letter of
Aristeas refers only to the translation of the Pentateuch. In these pro-
logues, an attempt can be seen to justify and recommend his new
translation based on Hebrew as against the LXX held to be inspired
even by his contemporary, Augustine. The prestige which the LXX
enjoyed as the Bible of the Church required an explanation for the
new Vulgate translation, a translation which very soon was to replace
the Greek version in the West.

h) The Completion of the Septuagint

The Letter of Aristeas only refers to the translation of the Pentateuch
into Greek in the 3rd century scx. However, the process of the
translation of Hebrew Bible into Greek continued in the 2nd and
Ist centuries ce. That is to say, the translation into Greck of the
Bible took four centuries, was the work of several translators and,
as is obvious, throughout this period the translation techniques also
varied. Not only that but, besides the translation of the Hebrew
books, the Bible of Alexandria was enriched by including new books
written in Greek such as Wisdom, Judith, Baruch, the Letter of
Jeremiah or 1 and 2 Maccabees, and adds Greck supplements to
other books such as Esther and Daniel.

It is not always easy to date these translations and new composi-
tions. For this we have two basic criteria, one is external, from wit-
nesses where these translations are already quoted, and the other is
internal, from the analysis and characteristics of the translation.
Recently, Dorival has set out the current position concerning the
chronology and geography of these translations and we refer to him
for further information.” However, this transformation of the Bible

“ Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. R. Weber, I, Stuttgart, -1969. On bib-
lical prologues before Luther, see M. E. Schild, Abendlandische Bibelvorreden bis zur
Lutherbibel, Hcidelberg 1970, pp. 24-42.

”) M. Harl, et al.,

PSEUDO-ARISTEAS AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES 51

through being translated into Greek does not end here. It affects the
titles of the books, their grouping and sequence, the arrangement of
the material, the different editions of certain books, and several other
divergences of lesser importance but of great cultural and exegetical
interest." All this transforms the Bible of Alexandria, even though
it is largely a translation, into a literary work that warrants being
studied for its own sake.”

SeLecT Brs_ioGRAPHY

Andrews, H. ‘T., “The Letter of Ari: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, Oxford 1913, 83-122,

Aptowitzer, V., “Die rabbinischen Berichte iiber die Entstehung der LXX”. Ha-
Qedem 2 (1909), 11-27, 10222; 3 (1910), 4-17.

Beavis, M. A. L., “Anti-Egyptian Polemic in the Letter of Aristeas 130-65 (The

igh Pri Discourse)”, 787 18 (1987), 145-51. ‘

Bickermann, “far Datierung des Pseudo-Aristeas”. ZNW*-29 (1930) = Studies in
Jewish and Christian History, “Leiden 1976, 109-37.

Boccaccini, G., “La sapie! dello Pscudo-Aristea”. Biblische und judaistische Studien.
Festschrifl fiir Paolo Sacchi, ed. A. Vivian, Frankfurt-Bern-New York~Paris 1990,
143-76.

Cohen, N. G., “he Names of the Translators in the Letter of Aristeas: A Study
on the Dynamics of Cultural Transition”. 7§7 15 (1984), 32-64.

Delling, G. (ed.), Bibliographie zur jtidisch-hellenistischen und interlestamentarischen Literatur
1900-1965, Berlin 1969, 61-63, 2nd edn, Berlin 1976, 97-98.

Dorival, G., “L’histoire de la Septante dans le judaisme antique”. M. Harl et al,
La Bible grecque des Septanie, 1988, 31-83.

, “La bible des Septante: 70 ou 72 traducteurs?”. Tradition of the Text, 1991,
45-62.

Esbroeck, M. van, “Une forme inédite de la lettre du roi Ptolémée pour la tra-
duction des LXX”. Bib 57 (1976), 542-49.

Fernandez Marcos, N., “El ‘scntido profundo’ de las prescripciones dietéticas judias
(Carta de Aristeas 143-69)". Salvaciin en la Palabra, 1986, 553-62.

» “Letter of Aristeas”, Apécrifos del Antiguo Testamento Il, ed. A. Diez Macho,
Madrid 1983, 9-64.

Freudenthal, J., Hellenistische Studien I und II, Breslau 1875, (854.

Hadas, M., Aristeas to Philocrates, New York-London 1951.

Howard, G., “The Letter of Aristeas: A Re-evaluation”. BIOSCS 4 (1971), 89

Isserlin, B. 8. J., “The Names of the 72 Translators of the Septuagint (Aris
47-50)”. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University (The Gaster
Festschrifi) 5 (1973), 95-106,

Jellicoe, S., SMS, 29-58.

Kahana, A., Ha-sefarim Ha-hisonim, Tel-Aviv 1956, Tl, 1-71.

" See H. B. Swete, dn Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 197-288, and
Z. Frankel, Uber den Ei influss der paléistinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik,
Leipzig 1851, and M. Harl, ‘ divergences entre la Septante et le texte mas-
sorétique”, M. Harl et al., La Bible grecque des Seplante, 201-22.

*? See M. Harl, La langue de Japhet, 33-42.

52 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Kraus Reggiani, C., La lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, introduzione, esame analitico, traduzione,
Rome 1979.

Meecham, H. G., “The Letter of Aristeas: A Linguistic Study”. Diss. Manchester
1935.

Meisner, N., “Aristeasbrief”. JSHRZ I-I, Gtitersloh 1973, 35-85,

; “Untersuchungen zum Aristeasbricf”. Diss. Berlin 1973.

Méléze Modrzejeeski, J., Les Juifs d’Egypte. De Ramsés I a Hadrian, Paris 1991,

Mendels, D., “On ‘Kingship’ in the “lemple Scroll’ and the Ideological Vorlage of
the seven Banquets in the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates”. Aegyptus 59 (1979),
12737.

Miiller, K., “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten uber die Anfange der Septuaginta”.
Wort, Lied und Gotlesspruch, 73-93.

Murray, O., “Aristeas and his Sources”. Studia Patristica XM, Berlin 1975, 123-28.

Murray, O., “Aristeasbrief”. RAC Sup I, (1986), 573-87.

Parente, “La ‘Lettera di Aristea’ come fonte per la storia del giudaismo alessan-
drino rante la prima meta del I secolo a.C.”. ASNP 2 (1972), 177-237 and
51767.

Pelletier, A., Flavius Joséphe adaptateur de la lettre d7Aristée: une réaction aiticisante contre la
koiné, Paris 1962.

, “Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and the Septuagint”. Josephus, 1989,
97-115.

——~—, Lettre d’Aristée & Philocrate. SC. 89, Paris 1962.

Schtirer, E., “Pseudo-Aristeas”. The History of the Jewish People, TI. 1, 1986, 677-87.

Shutt, R. J. H., “Letter of Aristeas”, In J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, IL, New York 1985, 7-34.

Swete, H. B., An Jntroduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 10-28
and 531-606 (edition of the letter by H. St J. Thackeray).

‘Tcherikover, V., “Phe Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas”. H7R 51(1958) 59-85.

Tov, E., “The Rabbinic Tradition concerning the Alterations Inserted into the Greek
Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX”. JSF 15
(1984), 65-89.

Tramontano, R., La lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, Naples 1931.

‘Troiani, L., “Il libro di Aristea ed i giudaismo ellenistico (Premesse per un’inter-
pretazione)”. Studi Ellenistict Tl, Pisa 1987, 31-61.

Veltri, G., Eine Tora fir den Konig Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Ubersetzungsverstindnis in
der jiidisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur, Viibingen 1994.

Walter, N., “Jewish-Greek Literature of the Greek Period”. The Cambridge History of
Judaism, 1989, 385-408.

“Jiidisch-hellenistische Literatur vor Philon von Alexandrien (unter Ausschluss
der Historiker)”. ANRW Il, 20, 1 (1987), 67-120.

Wendland, P., Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula, Leipzig 1900.

~~~, “Per Aristeasbric!”. Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, ed.
E. Kautzsch, Tiibingen 1900, II, 1-31.

Willrich, H., “Urkundenfalschung in der hellenistisch-jiidischen Literatur”, FRLANT-

nf 21 (1924), 86-91.

For more detailed studies on the various aspects and problems of the letter, see CB
45-47 and C. Dogniez, BS 15-21.

CHAPTER FOUR

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGINS
OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Most recent studies on the Letter of Aristeas have been carried out in
connection with the origins of the LXX and are stimulated by prob-
lems that have arisen from textual criticism of the Greek Bible. Each
position adopted from the beginning of the century in this respect
has repercussions on the interpretation of the Leller, since every the-
ory about the origin and early history of the LXX uses it as a ref
erence point. There is almost unanimous agreement that it is a
propaganda document in favour of a Greek translation of the Penta-
teuch. The discrepancy revolves around the following questions: To
which translation does it refer and when was it made? The dia-
metrically opposed positions that mark out the frame of polemics
are those of Lagarde and the Géttingen School on the one hand,
who defend on principle the single origin of the LXX (although tem-
pered by many nuances as more is known about the textual history
of the various books), and the position of Kahle and his disciples on
the other hand, who maintain a plural or multiple origin of the
translation in the manner of a Greek Targum. These two theories
have polarised the attention of specialists in the course of this century
and continue to be latent as basic interrogatives in every attempt to
restore the original LXX which is the goal of every critical edition.
Besides these other hypotheses have arisen, which without expressly
avouring any of the theorics proposed have tried to incorporate the
data from tradition within new coherent explanations, with greater
or less success. Some of them already belong to the past and have
no more than historical interest, but we shall consider them briefly
so that the history of research can be better understood.

a) The Septuagint as a Greek Targum (P. Kahle)

Kahle set out his theory for the first time in 1915 and maintained
it throughout his life, followed by his disciple A. Sperber.' According

' P. Kable, “Untersuchungen”; Kahle, The Cairo Geniza; although he already

54 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

to Kahle, there never was an Ur-Septuagint or single original text.
Instead from the beginning there were several translations that arose
from liturgical necessity in the various synagogues, just like the
Aramaic Targums. In the face of this pluralism, from time to time
attempts were made at unification. However, a definitive and official
text came not at the beginning but at the end of a long process of
previous attempts. In this supposition, translations of greatly varying
quality circulated in the Jewish communities. At a given moment the
need was felt for approving a recognised and official translation. The
Letter of Aristeas alludes to this version sanctioned by the Jewish author-
ities, a unified version made around [00 BoE, since in ¢. 132 BcE,
in the prologue of Sira, the Law, the prophets and other writings
are mentioned already as integral parts of the new translation. The
Letler of Aristeas is thus a piece of propaganda writing recommend-
ing this approved version as against many others that continued to
be used for some time; in spite of the letter these did not completely
disappear. Remnants are preserved in biblical quotations of the New
Testament, especially in the book of Acts and in the letter to the
Hebrews which agree surprisingly with the text of the Samaritan
Pentateuch; and the same applies to the quotations from the books
of Jubilees.? Traces of these multiple versions are reflected in the
actual tradition of the LXX for some books that have been transmitted
in duplicate texts.? And not only this, but along the same lines he
interprets a serics of data from the documents recently discovered
which at first surprised LXX critics, such as the variants of Papyrus
Fouad 266 (Ist century scr), Papyrus Gr. 458 Manchester (2nd cen-
tury BCE), which contain readings related to the Lucian recension;
the Greek fragments from Qumran Cave 4, the Greek fragments of
the Twelve prophets identified by Barthélemy, the Lucianic readings
predating the recension of the historical Lucian known through Justin,
Philo, Josephus and Old Latin, the anonymous versions quinia, sexta
and septima used by Origen for compiling the Hexapla; the non-

applied it earlier to the Samaritan Targum. In 1954, (“Die im August 1952 ent-
deckte Lederrolle”) in support of his theory, he interprets the Greek fragments of
the Minor Prophets identified by D. Barthélemy, “Redécouvert d’un chainon man-
quant de Vhistoire de la Septante”, RB 60 (1953), 1829, a position restated in
P. Kahle, “Problems of the Septuagint”, Studia Patnstica, ed. K. Aland and F. L.
Cross, Berlin 1957, 1 (= TU 63) 328-38.

2 P. Kahle, “Untersuchungen

* For example, Judges, Tobit, Danicl. See the next chapter.

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGIN 55

Septuagintal quotations of Philo, the Theodotionic text of Daniel
and the presence of Theodotionic quotations in the New Testament
and the apostolic Fathers, the Hebraisms of the Coptic versions, etc.*
Both Theodotion and Lucian revised other very ancient translations
but not the LXX. This explains the presence of Theodotionic and
Lucianic readings in documents that are chronologically earlier than
the date usually given for Theodotion and Lucian.

The basic task, therefore, does not consist in discovering or recon-
structing, by the procedures used in textual criticism, an imaginary
primitive text, but in carefully comparing all that remains of these
earlier translations, before the standardised text of the Greek Bible.®
Kahle’s hypothesis is taken up and developed further by his disci-
ple A. Sperber. Combining the theory of Wutz ~ to which we shall *
refer later — with Kahle’s, Sperber presupposes in the history of the
LXX a transitional period in which Greck was used both for the
transcription of Hebrew and for translation.’ Next there arose spor-
adic translations according to the needs of the communities in the
diaspora in which Hebrew was gradually disappearing as a spoken
language. In the period before Christianity came on the scene, there
were at least two Greck translations of the Old Testament which
can be identified on the basis of quotations from the Old Testament
in the New. Building on these suppositions, Sperber introduced the
expression ‘Bible of the apostles’ as a common denominator for all
those texts where the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament
and which diverge from the LXX we know.’ In the Hexapla also
he finds traces of more than one Greek translation. The obelised®
section reflects a translation into Greek of a Hebrew Bible which at
this period included the whole Old Testament, a direct Hebrew
exemplar of which we have in the Samaritan Pentatcuch.
However, although Kahle’s theory is so rich in ideas, the textual
links required to make it true, or at least likely, are missing. The

+ P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 191-261.

5 “The task which the Septuagint presents to scholars is not the ‘reconstruction’
of an imaginary ‘Urtext’ nor the discovery of it, but a careful collection and inves-
gation of all the remains and traces of earlier versions of the Greck Bible which
differed from the Christian standard text,” P. Kahle, The Cairo Gemiza, 264.

8 A. Sperber, “Das Alphabet der Septuaginta-Vorlage”, OLZ 32 (1929), 533-40.

? A. Sperber, Testament and LXX” (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 6 (1934), 1-20;
Sperber, “New Testament and Septuagint”, JBL 59 (1940), 193-293.

* Le. the one found in the LXX even though it does not correspond to the
Masoretic text we know. See chapter 12.

56 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

LXX became the Christian Bible only for the purpose of canonis-
ing its different books in the 2nd century ce. In the period when
Christianity appeared one should recognise, both for the books cited
in the Qumran writings and in the quotations in the New Testament,°
that it is incorrect to exaggerate the distinction between the Palestinian
and Alexandrian canons as if the latter were the one that the Church
would one day inherit. On the contrary, in both sets of writings —
Qumran and New Testament — the same Old Testament books are
mentioned; these quotations correspond therefore to a period of tex-
tual instability before it was fixed at the Synod of Yamnia (c. 100
ce). As for the quotations in the New Testament, the cornerstone
of Kahle’s theory, it presents much more complex problems than he
had realised. Moreover, there are other hypotheses that can explain
the many divergences from the Septuagintal text: quoting from mem-
ory, mixed quotations, adaptation of prophecy to context, the many
revisions to which the original text was subject from very early on,
etc. The Semitic tradition that seems to underlie Stephen’s speech
(Acts 7), which Kahle attributed to the existence of Greck texts
related to the Samaritan Pentateuch, has an mnmediate antecedent
in the Hebrew texts from Qumran and comprises an example of
textual pluralism in Hebrew in the centuries prior to the Christian
era.'° The recently discovered papyri of the LXX in the pre-recen-
sional period are not substantially different in form, in spite of the
interpretation given them by Kahle, but at most are traces of very
early revisions along the lines indicated by Barthélemy.''! From ana-
lytical study of individual books, the school of LXX scholars in the
USA and Canada has confirmed the basic soundness of Lagarde’s
approach although it has refined his initial position. P. Katz, Kahle’s
disciple, devotes at his request a monograph to the biblical text of
Philo’ and comes to conclusions that are opposed to his master’s,

scussion of this point, see chapter 20.

© J. de Waard, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and in the New Testament, Leiden 1965, especially pp. 80-81, and F. M. Cross, “The
History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert”, HTR
57 (1964} 281-99. The bibliography on the history of the text in this period has
greatly increased as a result of the publications of the documents from Qumran.
See particularly N. Fernandez Marcos, “La Biblia de los autores del Nuevo
Testamento”, If Simposto Biblico Espanol, ed. V. Collado Bertomeu and V. Vilar-
Hueso, Valencia~Cérdoba 1987, 171-80.

" —D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, Leiden 1963.

® P. Katz, Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in some Philonic Writings
and us Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible, Cambridge 1950.

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGIN 57

results which he did not accept.'S Internal arguments and the data
we have for the historical nucleus preserved in the Letler of Aristeas
are sufficient proof that in the case of the LXX a process like that
of the Aramaic Targums did not occur.

b) An Alexandrian Origin but in the Maccabean Period (c. 146 sce)

This is the hypothesis held by H. Graetz in a short article"? towards
the end of the last century. He starts from some texts which, in
Graetz’ opinion, already reflect the polemic between Pharisees and
Sadducees (Lev. 23:11-16). Proving that translators resolve the dilemma
along Pharisaic lines means that the version could not have been
made before the Maccabean period when these differences started ,
to manifest themselves. He also bases his theory on other peculiar
features of the version, such as the translation of ’arnebet by Sacbnovg
(Lev. 11:5) and not by Aya. Instead of the rabbinic explanation
for this choice which we saw in the previous chapter, according to
Graetz this synonym was not chosen to avoid offending the Lagides
but because at that time Sacbm0vg was the word more in use for
‘hare’ (arnebet).

Similarly; in Ez. 8:12 the first half of the verse is missing from
the LXX; Origen adds it with a preceding asterisk and the follow-
ing note: “the words ‘the king shall mourn’ were perhaps omitted
intentionally by the translators, to avoid suspicion that the king had
occasion to suffer”.!> The translation of melek by &pywv instead of
Bactreds (Dt. 17:14-19) would be explained in the same way. These
details confirmed the thesis of Aristeas that an Alexandrian king pro-
moted the translation; only that the king in question to which the
letter refers would be Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-145 ce), a bene-
factor of the Jews, patron of Onias IV and founder of the temple
of Leontopolis.

SP. Katz, Philo’s Bible, 9561. and 114ff. Ninety-five percent of Philo’s quotations
are from the LXX; about 4% are of a different type in certain manuscripts, in oth-
ers, the same as LXX. About 1% are of a different type in all the manuscripts.
Philo’s commentary is based on the text of the LXX. The quotations which differ
in the lemma seem to have been changed and do not match the commentary, ‘The
non-Septuagintal texts in Philo are from Aquila. Later, Philo must have gone through
Jewish hands in a period when Aquila’s translation was obligatory.

4H. Graetz, “The Genesis of the So-called LXX”.

8H. Graetz, “The Genesis of the So-called LXX”, 151.

58 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT
However, Swete’s reply,'* based on linguistic arguments, was cnough
to emphasise the weakness of Graetz’ arguments, which were insufficient
to make a change of such magnitude in the date of the letter.

c) A Palestinian Origin

This hypothesis was formulated by M. Gaster in the Schweich Lectures
of 1923.7 According to him, the Greek Pentateuch did not arise in
Alexandria but in Palestine, since only the Palestinian origin of the
version could count on enough prestige and support to be accepted
among the Jews of the diaspora. The movement that produced the
Greck Pentateuch represents only a further facet of the general resist-
ance to Hellenisation of the peoples of Near East by means of
affirming the antiquity and superiority of their own culture. By trans-
lating the scriptures into Greck the Jews took the war to the enemy
camp. However, here an additional factor comes into play, the rivalry
between Jews and Samaritans. The two groups presented themselves
to king Ptolemy with their respective translations into Greek so that
he could decide the dispute. The king of Egypt declared in favour
of the Jewish version which in future became the official text, fixing
in this way the superiority of the Jewish Pentatcuch of Jerusalem
over the Samaritan Pentateuch, an event reflected in the exchange
of presents in the Letter of Aristeas. From the Jewish-Hellenistic his-
torian’s knowledge of the biblical traditions he dates the version
towards the end of the 4th or the beginning of the 3rd century BcE,
ic. under Ptolemy I (823-285). In this hypothesis, the Samariticon'®
would in fact be the Samaritan Pentateuch, of the same date as the
Jewish version of the LXX and responding to the same caste spirit.
Both versions would represent the first step towards the ‘Targums,
and would have been made for the use of the people and not for
liturgical service where the Hebrew would continue to be used in
Palestine until the Aramaic liturgical Targums appeared.

The ferment of resistance to Hellenisation which is part of Gaster’s
theory has been made explicit recently by R. Hanhart.'? However

\ H. B. Swete, “Graetz’s Theory of the LXX”.

M. Gaster, The Samaritans.
See chapter 9.

‘9 R. Hanhart, “Zum Wesen der makedonisch-hellenistischen Zeit Israels”, ort,
Lied und Gottesspruch U, Wirzburg 1972, 49°59.

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGIN 59

the rest of the theory is not convincing since recent study of the lan-
guage has more than proved the Alexandrian origin of the Pentateuch
and of other books such as Isaiah, 1-4 Kings, Jeremiah, Job, Proverbs.””

d) A Liturgical Origin

This theory is connected with Thackeray, who developed it in the
1920 Schweich Lectures (published in 1923).?' He attempted to give
a valid and coherent explanation that could embrace all the books
of the LXX. The origin of various parts of the LXX is conditioned
by the liturgical requirements of the synagogue. As a result, the trans-
lation was made in four stages:

1. First, the Law or Pentateuch in the 3rd century BcE, as a unit
and by a small team. The vocabulary and style indicate its Alexandrian
origin. Apart from the last part of Exodus, there are very few diver-
gences from the Hebrew text.”

2. In a second phase the latter prophets were translated: Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets, beginning with
Isaiah, the book having a language and style most like the Pentateuch.
The sequence was dictated by use in the synagogue, since these
books provide the material for the second liturgical reading or haflarah
after the reading from the Law.

3. At a further stage a partial, expurgated version of the former
prophets was produced including | Samuel, 2 Samuel 1-11 (omitting
the Uriah episode), 1 Kgs beginning with 2:12 (Solomon’s accession
to the throne) and continuing up to 21:43. Finally the work was re-
edited by a single author who filled in the gaps of previous trans-
lators.7 And these three parts comprise the Alexandrian version
proper, divided into three volumes.

% See in general A. Deissmann’s studies in the light of the papyri and for Isaiah,
J. L. Secligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Leiden
1948, 95-122, and J. Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur LXX des Buches Isaias. AVA XI, 3
Minster 1934, chap. VII: ‘Der alexandrinisch-adgyptische Hinte: rgrund der Is-L. XxX’,

2 See Select Bibliography. However he had already expres it more clearly in
1915 in his article “Septuagint” in the /SBE.

” For this part of Exodus, see the monograph by D. W. Gooding, The Account
of the Tabernacle: Translations and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus, Cambridge 1959,
and D. Fraenkel, “Die Quellen der asterisierten Zusatze im zweiten Tabernakelbericht
Exodus 35-40”, Studien zur Septuaginta, 140-86,

*5 See H. St J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Fewsh Worship, 16-28.

60 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

4. The Writings (k’tébim) have a special place. If we except the
Psalter, where the translators took hardly any liberties, the rest of
the translation was the product of free paraphrases and extracts
which sometimes include legendary additions and are directed more
to the general public than to the faithful of the synagogue. This
explains the partial translation of Job (one-sixth shorter than the
Hebrew textus receptus)* made by someone who had studied the Greek
poets; and the fact that Proverbs contains sayings that do not occur
in the Hebrew and that the translator composed fragments in iambs
and hexameters. With the same liberties, | Ezra is composed of
extracts from the Hebrew books of Chronicles—Ezra—Nehemiah, pasted
together around a fable of non-Jewish origin, the legend of the three
bodyguards of king Darius (Ezra 3-5). The same author of 1 Ezra
edited the first version of Daniel (Dan.-LXX) incorporating extra-
neous clements missing from the Masoretic text such as the hymn
of the three youths, the short story of Susannah and the episode of
Bel and the Dragon. This liberty reached its peak in the translation
of the book of Esther, where the Greck additions, missing from the
Hebrew text, make up two-thirds of the total story.

At the time of being translated, these Writings, which later acquired
official recognition, were not so binding as the Law and the Prophets,
and allowed the translator a degree of creativity.

One of the weak points of Thackeray’s theory is that he leaves
out of this process the translation of Joshua and Judges, two books
that raise problems due to the different recensions in which their
text has been transmitted. Nonetheless, it is the most ambitious
hypothesis to try to incorporate in a coherent way the whole process
of decanting the Bible from Hebrew to Greck in its different stages.
Of course some links do not have positive support from the data
and others have been discarded owing to later research, such as the
theory concerning the division of the books into two halves for its
translation. Thackeray’s studies were based on Swete’s manual cdi-
tion. Now it is known that phenomena that Thackcray attributed to
the translators are due to later stages of the transmission of the text,
as was proved once the material had been conveniently stratified in
the critical editions. On the other hand, continuous reading of the

* See N. Fernandez Marcos, “The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job”, The
Book of Job, ed. W. A. M. Beuken, Leuven 1994, 251-66.

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGIN 61

Law together with the Aaffarét of the prophets is unlikely, as Perrot
has recently confirmed, and thus there was no liturgical need for a
complete translation of the Torah.”

e) The Transcription Theory

Although of no interest today as an explanation for the origins of
the LXX, in its time it was the object of scholarly debate and
unleashed a series of publications from the beginning of the 1920s
until the end of the 1930s."* It had already been raised by the Danish
scholar Tychsen in the 18th century,” but scholars paid almost no
attention to it. The name that has been almost exclusively identified
with this theory is F. X. Wutz (1883-1938). He defended it in a
series of publications, from 1922 until his death, with a huge col-
lection of material.” According to him, the translators of the LXX
used a Hebrew text that had already been transliterated into Greek
characters; with the result that he undertook the task of tracing that
text by means of the remains of transliterations preserved in the
LXX: proper names, difficult words that they did not understand,
palacographic mistakes, etc. By means of these isolated indications
he tried to recover the consonantal Hebrew text that the translators
used as a Vorlage, a text which of course would have the advantage
of being much older than the Masoretic text as we have it in Hebrew
manuscripts.”? As well as the material transliterated in the LXX, he
used transcriptions from the second column of the Hexapla by means
of photographs of the Milan palimpsest discovered by G. Mercati,
transcriptions of “the three”, especially ‘Theodotion, and for proper
names the Onomastica Sacra by Eusebius and Jerome’s transcriptions.

There is no doubt at all that the data handled by Wutz are
well-founded. It is clear that the LXX preserves a large number of
transcriptions, not only of proper and place names but even of other
difficult terms, the meaning of which was not clear to the translators.

* C. Perrot, “La lecture de la Bible dans la diaspora hellénistique”, Etudes sur le
judaisme hellénistique, ed. R. Kuntzmann and J. Schlosser, Paris 1984, 109-32.

® See CB 43, Wutz’s Theory.

27 O. G. Tychsen, Tentamen de variis codicum hebraicorum VI MSS generibus, Rostock
1772, 54-65.

* See CB 43-44.

* See F. W. Wutz, Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta 1, 6111; 101M; IL, passim.

62 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Tt is even possible that parts of the Hebrew Bible used in the liturgy
were transcribed into Greek for the convenience of the faithful who
had lost contact with the original script of Hebrew when it became
a sacred language and disappeared as a spoken language. However,
from these scant and uncertain data Wutz sets out an elaborate and
subtle theory which violates the translation process, forcing it into a
precise chronology on the basis of transcriptions. The hypothesis of
a change to the Greek script continues to be a probable conjecture
until the transcriptions of the Hexaplaric secunda (c. 230 cr). Even
the origin and purpose of this secunda poses such problems” that it
cannot be used to support a global theory about the origins of the
LXX.

It is much more likely that the translators transliterated the proper
names as they were pronounced in their time; hence the importance
of the transcriptions for studying the pronunciation of pre-Masoretic
Hebrew, used with due caution, stratified chronologically and tak-
ing into account the corruptions due to transmission and the diachronic
evolution of the vocalic and consonantal systems of Greek and Hebrew.

Wutz’s theory inserts an unnecessary stage into the translation
process. If the translator is able to handle a Hebrew text transliter-
ated into Greek it can be assumed that he knows enough Hebrew
to translate directly from the original. Furthermore, there is absolutely
no decisive proof that the translators used transliterated texts. If they
had, it would have produced endless ambiguities, considering that
the four Hebrew phonemes comprising the sibilants (5, s, § 5) are
transcribed by a single phoneme in Greck, namely sigma; the same
difficulties must have applied in distinguishing the gutturals. On the
other hand there are indications of similar Hebrew letters being con-
fused in translating, such as d/r and _»/w, whose Greek equivalents
are not so alike as to be confused by copyists.

f) Other Theories

As we have seen, none of the theories set out explains in a satis-
factory way the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek as it is
described in the Letter of Aristeas, and thus none of them has gained
general acceptance among specialists. Although scholars continue

* See chapter 12.

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGIN 63

to argue the case between the needs of the Jewish community of
Alexandria and the initiative of King Ptolemy as principal cause of
the translation, the most recent publications tend to favour the official
initiative, the cultural and legislative politics of the Ptolemaic court,
as the main reason for the translation. Several indications support
this supposition. First of all, the Alexandrian Jewish sources as well
as the rabbinic sources refer to the translation as a royal initiative
and are silent on the motive of the liturgical or cultural needs of
the Jewish community. No privately instigated translation is known
before the 2nd century sce, and it would be of the Prophets as a
continuation of the Torah. All the examples known of translations
made in this period*' are due to royal or official undertaking more
or less in the direction indicated by the Letter of Aristeas. Accordingly,
an historical nucleus has to be accepted in the traditions included
in this letter.

Some scholars also insist on the importance of the codification of
public law in the court of the Ptolemies, a codification which included
the Law of the Jews. This hypothesis, defended in various forms by
Bickermann, Stricker, Rost and Barthélemy,” has been developed
by Méléze Modrzejewski from the publication of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus
3285, which presents the ancient local law of the indigenous inhab-
itants of Egypt. According to him, around 275 sce all the judicial
apparatus of the Lagides was translated from Demotic into Greek.
The same happened to the Torah of the Jews so that the royal
officials could understand it. As a result, the translation of the Law
into Greek received a sort of official sanction, thanks to its inclusion
in the judicial system of Ptolemy IT Philadelphus.* However thought
provoking this hypothesis might be, there is no incontrovertible proof
for the inclusion of the Law into the juridical system of the Lagides,

31 Manetho wrote the history of the pharaohs at the request of Ptolemy II,
Berossus dedicates the history of Babylonia to Antiochus I of Syria, Hermippus
prepares a Greek commentary on Zoroaster, again on royal demand, the Greek
edicts of Asoka around 250 sce are due to the initiative of that Indian emperor;
see G. Dorival, “Les origines de la Septante”, 71, and E. Benvéniste, “Rdits df’ Asoka
en traduction grecque”, Journal Asiatique 252 (1964), 137-57.

® Sce E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History 1, Leiden 1976, 137-66
and 167-200; B. H. Stricker, De brief van Aristeas, Amsterdam 1956; L. Rost,
“Vermutungen iiber den Aniass zur griechischen Ubersetzung der Tora”; D. Bar-
thélemy, “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en grec?”, Etudes dhistoire du texte
de VAncien Testament, Freiburg-Géttingen 1978, 322-40.

* See G. Dorival, “Les origines de la Septante”, 73-76.

64 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

and it must be admitted that the Pentateuch is more than a law
code. Ptolemy’s cultural policy is attested, besides the evidence trans-
mitted by the Leiter, by the information about the classification of
the works kept in the Library of Alexandria in the time of Callimachus
(260-240). However, if there had been a copy of the Pentateuch in
Greck in that library, it is difficult to think that there was no ref-
erence to the Greek Bible in Greek and Latin writers before the
treatise De Sublimitate by. Pseudo-Longinus (Ist century cE) unless those
writers were repelled by the strange contents of the LXX and the
bad Greek of the translation compared with the lterary usages of
the time.** There is no doubt that the socio-religious and apologetic
needs of the community of Alexandria were latent as is shown by
the new literary genres in Greek that the Jews of the diaspora cul-
tivated, but it is difficult to avoid the essence of the Letter of Aristeas
according to which the initiative for the undertaking came from the
court of King Ptolemy.

g) The Proto-Septuagint

The problem of the proto-Septuagint, which had leapt onto the schol-
arly stage after 1915 with the debate between Lagarde (single ori-
gin) and Kahle (multiple origin) of the version, came to the forefront
again in the 1940s with the publication of the commentary on Daniel
by Montgomery, on Greek Joshua by Margolis, the writings of
A. Sperber, and the publication of the Chester Beatty, Rylands and
Scheide papyri.* What for Lagarde was a working hypothesis with
a good dose of intuition has been confirmed by the inductive analy-
sis of several LXCX books: by Rahlfs for Ruth, by Margolis for Joshua,
by Montgomery for Daniel and Kings, by Moore for Judges, and
by Ziegler for Prophets. To this must be added the works by Gehman
on the secondary versions and the recent editions and studies by
Wevers on the Greek Pentateuch and by Hanhart on 2 Maccabees,

See G. Dorival, “La Bible des Septante chez les auteurs paiens (jusqu’au pseudo-
Longin)”, Cahiers de Biblia patristica 1, Strasbourg 1987, 9-26; A. Momigliano, Alien
Wisdom, Cambridge 1978, pp. 91-92: “The LXX remained an exclusive Jewish pos-
session until the Christians took it over. We do not even know whether it was
deposited in the great Ptolemaic foundation, the library of Alexandria,” p. 92. Sce
also G. Rinaldi, Biblia Gentium, Rome 1989.

*% H, M. Orlinsky, “On the Present State of Proto-Septuagint Studies”, 81ff.

MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ORIGIN 65

Esther and 1 Ezra. Lagarde’s principles, plausible @ pror, have been
shown as solid and consistent. The variants in the pre-recensional
Papyri indicate that the revisions of LXX have to be put back to a
date closer to its composition. However the basic assumptions remain
unchanged.

In 1949, P. Katz, Kahle’s disciple, abandoned his teacher’s theo-
ries precisely because of his studies on biblical quotations in Philo
and Justin:** the idea that originally competing and simultancous par-
tial or complete translations once existed has no support in the facts
when these are only arranged chronologically.” Years later Wevers,
in an overall view of LXX studies within the perspective of origins,
would again insist on the basic reorganisation of the Lagarde~Rahlfs
position which shapes all the editorial work of the Sepiuaginta-Unternehmen
of Géttingen: “The future of proto-Septuagint studies depends on
the classical line, with some necessary modifications to be sure, rather
than on the general lines of Kahle’s approach.”

% P. Katz, “Das Problem des Urtextes der Septuaginta”, and Katz, Philo’s Bible.

% P. Katz, “Das Problen des Urtextes der Septuaginta”, 17: “Die Vorstcllung,
als hatten konkurrierende Teil oder Vollibersetzungen urspriinglich nebencinander
bestanden hat also keine Stiitze an den Tatsachen, wenn man diese nur geschichtlich
cinordnet.” And on p. 18 he adds: “So bleibt nur die Analogie zu den palastin.
Targumen. ‘Tatsachlich finden sich an die Targume gemahnende Deutungen, aber
so sporadisch, dass sie den Vergicich mit der starren Konsequenz der Targume
nicht aushalten. Hier zeigt sich nur ebén der Einfluss der Umwelt auf die Uber-
setzer, die dadurch noch lange nicht zu Targumisten werden. Beachtet man diese
Ejinschrankung aber nicht und schliesst aus soich vereinzelten Analogien weiter auf
cine urspriingliche Vielheit von Ubersetzungen, so ist das cinc petitio principii, Denn
bis heute ist keine cinzige Stelle nachgewiesen, fiir die wir mehr als eine vorrezen-
sionelle Ubersetzung besdssen, womoglich als Wiedergabe eines dem unsern tiber-
legenen Hebraers. Solange dieser Nachweis aber fehlt, ist alle Rede von urspriinglichen
Paralleltargumen blosse Vermutung auf Grund des aus vereinzelten Beobachtungen
@ priori erschiossenen Targumcharakter.”
88 J. W. Wevers, “Proto-Sepiuagint Studies”, 77, with an extensive bibliography.
And the information published by him periodically on current research in the field
of the LXX in Theologische Rundschau. See also J. W. Wevers, “The Géttingen
Septuagint”, B/OSCS 8 (1975), 19-23, and R. Hanhart, J. W. Wevers, Das Géttinger
Septuaginta-Unternehmen, Gittingen 1977. “So one may conclude that in the Kahle vs
Lagarde~Rahlfs controversy Kahle was wrong and the Lagarde school was right”
confirms J. W. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies”, 26, although
in the very next line he insists on the complexity of the text history of the Septuagint
in the various books and how the method proposed by Lagarde for restoring the
LXX has to be revised and refined in many ways.

66 ‘THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Secect BrerioGRaPHy

Dorival, G., “Les origines de la Septante”. M. Harl et al., La Bible grecque des Septante,
1988, 66-78.

s The Samaritans, London 1925, especially pp. 112-30.

, H., “The Genesis of the So-called LXX, the First Greek Version of the

Pentateuch”. JOR 3 (1891), 150-56.

, “The LXX: A Reply to Prof. Swete”. ET 2 (1890), 277-78.

Hanhart, R., “Fragen um die Entstehung der LXX”. VT 12 (1962), 139-62.

, “Zum gegenwartigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung”. De Sepiuaginta, 1984,

18.

Jellicoe, $., SMS, 59-70.

Kahle, P., “Die im August 1952 entdeckte Lederrolle mit dem griechischen Text der
Kleinen Propheten und das Problem der LXX”. TLZ 79 (1954), 81-94 (= Opera
minora 113-28),

» “Dic Septuaginta, Prinzipielle Erwagungen”. Festschrift O. Eissfeldt, Halle

1947, 161-180.

, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 1959, 191-304.

-—, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes”. TSA’ 88 (1915),

399- 439 (= Opera Minora, Leiden 1956, 3-37).

Katz, P., “Das Problem des Urtextes der Septuaginta”. TK 5 (1949), 1-24,

and Textual Criticism”. Actes du I? Ci Congres de la fédération internationale des associ-
ations d'études classiques, Paris 1951, 165-82.
Lagarde, P. A. de, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Ubersetzung der Proverbien, Leipzig 1863.

, Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior Graece, Gottingen 1883.

Orlinsky, H. M., “Current Progress and Problems in Septuagint Research”. The Study
of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, ed. H. R. Willoughby, Chicago 1947, pp. 155-57.

—~rn, “On the present State of Proto-Septuagint Studies”. JAOS 61 (1941), 81-91.

Pietersma, A., “Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues”. V7 35
(1985), 296-311. :

Rost, L., “Yermutungen fiber den Anlass 2ur griechischen Ubersetzung der Tora”.
Wort, Gebot, Glaube, Walter Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. H. J. Stoebe,
ATANT 59, Zurich 1970, 39-44.

Skehan, P. W., “The Earliest LXX and Subsequent Revisions”. Jerome Biblical
Commentary, New York 1968, 570-72.

Swete, H. B., “Graetz’s Theory of the LXX”. ET 2 (1890). 209.

Thackeray, H. St J., “Septuagint”, in /SBE IV 1915, 2722-32.

———., Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament, London 1927, 21-31.

, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins, London 1923.

Vattioni, F., “Storia del testo biblico: L’origine dei LXX”. AZON 40 (1980), 115-30.

Wevers, J. W., “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies”. B/OSCS 18 (1985), 16-38.

—nron, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies”. BIOSCS 21 (1988), 23-34.

~~-——, “Proto-Septuagint Studies”. The Seed of Wisdom: Fs. T. J. Meek, Toronto
1964, 58-77,

Wutz, F. X., Die Transkriptionen von der LXX bis zu Hieronymus. BWAT IL, 9 Lieferung
1 (1925), 1-176; Ligf 3 (1933), 177-571.

wns, Onomastica Sacra. Untersuchungen zum Liber interpretationis nominum hebraicorum des
hl. Hieronymus. I Quellen und System der Onomastica. Lf Texte und Register. TU 41
(1915).

—, Syslematische Wege von der Septuaginia zum hebrdischen Urtext, Stutigart 1937.

Further bibliography on Wutz’s theory in CB 43-44.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT

a) Two Texts Face to Face

Beyond the translation of the Torah or Pentateuch into Greek, to
which the Letter of Aristeas refers, the process of translation or cre-
ation of the other books of the Greek Bible which we know today
as the LXX, occurred in separate stages, that are difficult to deter-
mine, between the 2nd century Bce and the Ist century cE. This
inadequately known process, as well as the geographical origin of
the translation or creation of the various books, has been described
by G. Dorival in a short compendium that summarises the present
state of knowledge on the subject.'

The results of this process, however, are well known. A simple
comparison between the Greek Bible and the Hebrew Bible shows
a series of books in the LXX that are not included in the Hebrew
canon: 1 Ezra, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit,
Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah and the four books of Maccabees. To
these are added the Supplements to the book of Esther and the addi-
tions to the book of Daniel. And within the books included in the
Hebrew canon the differences are no less important: different titles
and arrangement of the various books, different sequence and con-
tents,’ cases in which the LXX represents a different textual tradi-
tion or a different edition from the Masoretic text.? Another kind of
difference is only evident when we subject both texts to the metic-
ulous examination of textual criticism; these differences are duc to
a different vocalisation of the consonantal Hebrew text, to the lin-
guistic comprehension of the translators, and to their particular trans-
lation technique and the theological and modernising interpretations."

' G. Dorival, “L’achévement de la septante dans le judaisme. De la faveur au
rejet”, in Harl, et al., La Bible Grecque des Septante, 83-111.

* See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914,
197-288.

* ©, Munnich, “Ecarts principaux entre la Septante et le texte massorétique (livre
par livre)”, M. Harl, et al, La Bible grecque des Septante, 173-82.

* M. Harl, “Les divergences entre la Septante et le texte massorétique”, M. Harl,
et al, La Bible grecque des Seplante, 201~22.

68 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

As a consequence of this complex process, the Bible of Alexandria
which the Greek-speaking Jew used cannot be considered a simple
reproduction of the original Hebrew text but an autonomous liter-
ary work organised around a new constellation of meanings within
the Greek system. And it can be said that the discrepancy between
the original and its reproduction appeared right from the first moment
of translation, as testified by the author of the prologue to the trans-
lation of Ecclesiasticus, towards the end of the 2nd century Bce.? An
echo of this inappropriateness of the Greek translation is also pre-
served in the many rabbinic references to the changes which the
seventy elders inserted into the translation for king Ptolemy.°

Tf these differences did not constitute a serious problem when the
Hebrew text itself had not yet been standardised, they became a
burning problem when the single consonantal text started to become
normative and binding towards the end of the Ist century cz. As
we saw when examining the reception of the Letter of Aristeas,’ an
attempt to reduce the unease aroused by these discrepancies between
the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible of Alexandria within the
Jewish community went in two directions. One part of Jewish tra-
dition, with Philo at its head, though it was to find an echo in
Augustine, chose to consider the LXX an inspired translation with
the same authority as the Hebrew Bible. According to this inspira-
tionist movement, God had revealed himself to the people of Israel
through Moses in the Hebrew Bible and through the translators in
the Greek Bible and both texts were inspired. However, there was
also another philological tendency within Judaism that was appar-
ent in a series of early revisions intended to correct the text of the
LXX in order to adapt it to the Hebrew text in current use. This
trend, which is already evident in the Hebraising corrections of some
pre-Christian papyri, would become more obvious in the xatye revi-
sion and culminated in the new Jewish translations by Aquila,
Symmachus and Theodotion or in the new translation into Latin by
Jerome.® Furthermore, these divergences would condition the history
of the transmission of the biblical text, and emerge with force in the

° For the same things said in Hebrew do not have the same force when trans-
lated into another language”, Ben Sira, Prologue 20.

* See pp. 47-50.

® See infra, chapters 7-9.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT 69

critical moments of the scientific study of the Bible. Two examples
are Origen’s Hexapla, the first attempt at synchronic comparison of
the different texts in circulation, and the Polyglot Bibles of the 16th
and 17th centuries, synoptic editions of the various texts, each retain-
ing its own autonomy.

Until the middle of this century, the differences between the LXX
and the Hebrew text were usually explained by resorting to the idio-
syncrasy and translation techniques of the translators, to editorial
reworking of the text in favour of an actual theology or to other
tendentious purposes. This is how H. S. Gehman, J. W. Wevers and
the Scandinavian school argued, up to H. S. Nyberg.® That is to
say, the same reasoning that P. de Lagarde had sketched out at the
close of the 19th century for the reconstruction of the LXX was
applied to the Hebrew text. In other words, at the beginning of text-
ual transmission, around 130 cr, there was only one Hebrew text
(the theory of the archetype) which was being reproduced with
extreme precision, ensuring the uniformity of the consonantal text.’
As a result, all the discordant readings to be found in the Samaritan
Pentateuch or in medieval manuscripts are due to copyist errors or
to tendentious changes to the original by the scribes of the dissident
sects. The same criterion is usually used with the versions and their
divergences from hebraica veritas. In the words of D. Barthélemy:
“Scholars were more and more reluctant to admit that every vari-
ant of the LXX was based on a Hebrew Vorlage distinct from the
MT.”" However, there was no lack of scholars in this period who
succeeded in discovering the high value of the LXX for the restora-
tion of the Hebrew text in some books in which the Masoretic text
was particularly corrupt. It is sufficient to mention names such as
O. Thenius, J. Wellhausen and S. R. Driver for the books of Samuel,
C. H. Cornill for Ezckiel, J. A. Montgomery for Kings and Daniel.”

° HS. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche, Uppsala 1935; H. S. Gehman, “Exegetical
Methods Employed by the Greek Translator of 1 Samuel”, JA4OS 70 (1950), 292-96,
and J. W. Wevers, “A Study in the Exegetical Principles of the ‘Translator of
Tl Sam, XL:2-1 Kings T:11”, CBQ 15 (1953), 30-45.

” On the differences between the theory of “a single recension” and “a single
archetype” which ultimately were considered as synonymous, see M. H. Goshen-
Gottstein, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and their Place in the HUBP
Edition”, Bib 48 (1967), 243-90, especially pp. 254-62.

" Text, Hebrew, in IDBS (1976), 878.

"OQ. Thenius, Die Biicher Samuelis, Dresden 1842; J. Wellhausen, Der Text der
Biicher Samuelis, Gottmgen 1871; S. R. Driver, Noles on the Hebrew text and the Topography

70 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

P. Kahle must be mentioned as the principal opponent of Lagarde’s
theory; he defended a plural origin of the LXX, just as happened
with the Aramaic Targums."

Parallel to this movement of textual re-evaluation of the LXX
there arose another, with Z. Frankel as its main exponent; he inter-
preted the differences between the Masoretic text and the Greek
Bible as the result of the influence of Jewish exegesis.'' This ten-
dency to highlight the periphrastic nature of the LXX culminated
in the statement, attributed to R. Kittel, that the LXX is not a trans-
lation but a theological commentary on the Hebrew text.'? Only
H. M. Orlinsky dared to state, before 1950, that the Hebrew manu-
scripts used by the translators of the LXCX in some books such as
Job, Jeremiah or Esther differed recensionally, and not only in small
details, from the Masoretic textual tradition, and then add that these
traditions perished some time ago."

b) Qumran and the Septuagint

It is difficult to overestimate the impact made by the finds from the
Desert of Judah on the understanding of the history of the biblical
text and more particularly on the early history of the LXX and its
relationship to the Hebrew text. Evidence of the enormous activity
expended in this field of research in recent years is provided by the
number of publications in progress,'’ which will probably increase
as the pace of the official editions of those documents increases. ‘The .
importance of these finds lies not only in the Greek fragments found
in Qumran and Nahal Hever but especially in the Hebrew texts.

of the Books of Samuel, Oxford 1890; C, H. Gornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel,
Leipzig 1886; J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of
Kings, Edinburgh-New York 1951, and Montgomery, 4 Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book of Daniel, Edinburgh 1927. :

'S For a description of P. Kahle’s theory on the origins of the LXX in the same
way as the Targums, see pp. 53~57. .

“7%, Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginia, Leipzig 1841, and Frankel, Uber den
Finfluss des palastinischen E-xegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneulik, Leipzig 1851.

® Cited by S. Jellicoe, SMS, 316.

'© “But those text-traditions have long perished, driven out by the Hebrew text
that was used by the Mishnah and Talmud, by Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus,
Origen, Jerome, from the first~second to the fifth centuries ap”, H. M. Orlinsky,
“On the Present State of Proto-Septuagint Studies”, JAOS 61 (1941), 78-109, p. 85.

Compare for example the one page devoted to the topic in the CB (1973) with
the fifteen pages of the BS (1995).

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT 71

And within these, those fragments that are compared with the LXX
allow certain conclusions to be drawn on the state of the biblical
text in the two centuries that preceded the standardisation of the
consonantal text.

Beginning with the Greck texts, prior to Qumran we only knew
two pre-Christian papyri, from Egypt, with fragments of Deuteronomy:
Pap. Rylands 458 (Rahlfs 957) from the 2nd century Bcr and Pap.
Fouad 266 (Rahlfs 848) from the Ist century sce. However, Qumran
has come to increase this stock with new fragments from the books
of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and the Letter of
Jeremiah, from Caves 4 and 7.'* In spite of the meagre amount of
documents recovered, the repercussions of these finds for LXX stud-
ies and its origins are enormous. In fact, the Greek manuscripts from
Qumran certainly support P. Lagarde’s theory on the origins of this
version. The emergence of Greck texts of the Pentateuch a century
and a half or two centuries from the Alexandrian translation, and
which fit in perfectly with the textual tradition represented by the
great uncial codices, tips the balance, we think conclusively, in favour
of Lagarde’s theory rather than Kahle’s. At the same time, they
reveal to us a new facct of the early history of the LXX: the recen-
sional activity did not begin with Origen, nor was it even motivated
by Jewish-Christian polemics, but goes back to a period quite close
to the origins of the translation itself, when the LXX was transmitted
within the Jewish communities and had not yet cut the umbilical
cord that tied it to the Hebrew text.

The other important group of Greek texts comes from a cave lying
on the southern slope of Nahal Hever, a few kilometres south of
En-Gedi. They are important fragments of a parchment scroll, which
Barthélemy presented in a pioneering article to the academic world
in 1953.'° Ten years later he published a transcription together with
a study of its implications for the history of the LXX, possibly the
most stimulating monograph of recent decades in the field of the
Greck Bible.” As late as 1962, B. Lifshitz published other fragments

® See E. Ulrich, “The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran,
Including Newly-Identified Fragments of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut)”, De Sepiuaginia,
1984, 71-82, and Ulrich, “The Septwagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal
of their Value”, P. W. Skehan, E. GC. Ulrich, J. E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4. IV:
Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manusenpis. DJD IX, Oxford, 1992.

® D. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d'un chafnon manquant de histoire de la
Septante”, RB GO (1953), 18-29.

*” 1D, Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTS 10 (1963).

72 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPFUAGINT

from the same cave which belonged to the same scroll of the Minor
Prophets.*! And finally in 1990, the official edition came out with
all the fragments published previously plus other additional unidentified
fragments, photographs, a palacographic study and a reconstruction
of the text based on detailed analysis of the translation techniques,
the spelling and the condition of the preserved sections.” In the
palacographic study of these documents, P. J. Parsons opted for dat-
ing them towards the end of the lst century Baz.”

With the obligatory refinements in matters of detail, Barthélemy’s
fundamental thesis, according to which these fragments belong to a
consistent revision of the LXX to bring it close to a Hebrew text
very similar to but not identical with the proto-Masoretic text, has
been firmly accepted. Some of the particular features of this revi-
sion which Barthélemy noted, and others identified in later stud-
ies, can be debated. It is also possible to discuss the length and
identification of this revision in other books of the Bible as well as
its uniformity since it seems instead that it forms part of a longer
translation with its own characteristics in the other books. Or its
relationship to rabbinic hermeneutics of the Ist century cz could be
discussed. However, there is absolutely no doubt that these fragments
belong to the LXX, which we knew through more reliable ancient
witnesses, but it was revised to adapt it with greater literalism to the
current Hebrew text. This proof also consolidates P. de Lagarde’s
hypothesis about the unity of the translation as against an original
pluralism as postulated by P. Kahle.

The finds from Nahal Hever, together with its general interpreta-
tion within the framework of the early history of the LXX provided
by Barthélemy, became an obligatory reference point for all later
studies. Displayed before us was a new image of the pre-Hexaplar
LXX, a shadowy zone of which we knew scarcely anything were it
not for the quotations in the NT, some pseudepigraphical writings,
the Jewish-Hellenistic historians, Philo, Josephus and the writings of
Justin. And it had important consequences, as we shall see, for the

* B. Lifshitz, “fhe Greck Documents from the Cave of Horror”, IEF 12 (1962),
201-207.

* E. Tov, with the collaboration of R. A. Kraft, and a contribution by P. J.
Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nakal Hever(8HevX Ter): The Seiyél Collection.
DJD VII, Oxford 1990.

° "Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets, 26.

4 Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 48-78.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT 73

image we have of the three more recent Jewish translators, Aquila,
Symmachus and Theodotion through the ancient sources.”
However, the documents from Qumran have revolutionised the
textual history of the LXX due to the Greek fragments discussed
and duc to the Hebrew texts discovered there, related in one way
or another with the Vorlage used by the Greek translators. In first
place must be mentioned the recovery of new originals in Hebrew
or Aramaic for books or parts of books which were unknown unti
now, such as the five manuscripts, four in Hebrew and one in
Aramaic, of the book of Tobit found in Cave 4, or the appearance
in Gave 11 (11QPs*) of two Hebrew compositions undoubtedly related
with an ancestor from which the Greek translation of Psalm 15
came. No less important is the discovery of readings that are different
from the textus receptus but that agree with LXX readings; before
Qumran these were usually explained as the result of a different
exegetical tradition and not as belonging to a different textual tra-
dition. For example, 4QGen-Exod", from the Herodian period, agrees
with the LXX that Jacob had seventy-five descendants instead of
seventy as transmitted by the éextus receptus. 4QDeut* contains the
final verses of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) in a composite
text which for the first time provides us with readings in Hebrew
which underlie the forms these verses have in the LXX.”* Even though
these occasional agreements should not be exaggerated and one
should not make hasty and more wide-ranging classifications about
the various textual types, to some extent in connection with the LXX
one can speak of a nemesis of Qumran in much the same way that
E. G. Turner spoke of a “papyrological nemesis [which] awaits those
who, without good reason, throw away explicit ancient testimonies”.””
Among the Hebrew documents from Qumran, those that merit
special attention are the ones that contribute fragments of a different
text from the textus receplus not only in actual variants but also from
the literary aspect. In Cave 4, fragments of Samuel and Jeremiah
were found with a text very close to the one used as a Vorlage by

* See infra chapters 7, 8 and 9.

* Pp, W. Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deuteronomy 32} from
Qumran”, and Fernandez Marcos, “La Septuaginta y los hallazgos del Desierto de
Juda”, 236-38.

* “Tt is clear that a papyrological nemesis awaits those who, without good rea-
son, throw away explicit ancient testimonies,” E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction,
Oxford 1968, p. 100.

74 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

the translators of the LXX. From the beginning these facts provoked
an avalanche of studies on the biblical text and a fierce debate,
which is still open, in the hope that the complete publication of the
documents from Qumran can throw some new light on the theories
circulating today. The best known is the theory of local texts set out
by F. M. Cross in 1953 and retained with a few refinements until
his most recent publications.”* It is the only theory claiming to explain
in full the history of the biblical text. It postulates, at least for the
Pentateuch, the existence of three textual families from three different
places, which Cross identifies as Egypt (Vorlage of the LXX, from a
full text, though not always, related at its oldest stage to the Palestinian
text}, Palestine (which is an expansionist text) and Babylonia (with a
short text, where preserved). The lack of links that would allow us
to reconstruct all the vicissitudes of the complex textual history, and
its somewhat speculative nature, have caused this hypothesis of local
texts, followed in general by Cross’s disciples and the Harvard school,
to be received cautiously by others and even to be rejected.” It has
also to explain the fact that among the documents of Qumran, i.e.
in the same geographical area, very different textual types are being
discovered that are proto-Masoretic, proto-Samaritan, Septuagintal
and of other types which for lack of better terminology are called
“independent”. However, in spite of the vulnerability of Cross’ the-
ory of local texts, today the coexistence of different textual types is
accepted as fact at least during the two centuries before the stand-
ardisation of the consonantal text. Furthermore, specialists such as
S. Talmon and E. Tov postulate greater pluralism or question the
very concept of textual type.*” Talmon focuses his attention on the

*® FM. Cross, “A New Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Under-
lying the Septuagint”; Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Dis-
coveries of the Judacan Desert”; Gross, “Che Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries
to the Study of the Biblical Text”; Cross, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local
Texts”, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 306-321; Cross, “Some Notes on
a Generation of Qumran Studies”, The Madrid Qumran Congress I, 1992, 1-21.

* See R. Hanhart, “Zum gegenwartigen Stand der Septuagintaforschung”, De
Sepiuaginia, 1984, 3-18, p. 10; G. Howard, “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism”;
S. Talmon, “The Old Testament Text I’, The Cambridge History of the Bible, 1, 193-99,

* See S. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook”, S. Talmon,
FM. Cr eds, Qumran and The History of the Biblical Text, 321-401; E. Tov,
“Determining the Relationship between the Qumran Scrolls and the LXX: Some
Methodological Issues”, The Hebrew and the Greek Text of Samuel, 45-67; Tov, “A
Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls”.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT 75

sociological groups which conditioned the transmission of the text.
According to him, of the various textual groups in existence only
those survived which counted on the support of a religious com-
munity entrusted with transmitting them, the Samaritan community
for the Samaritan Pentateuch, the pharisaic-rabbinic community for
the pre-Masoretic text and the Christian community for the text of
the LXX. In his analysis, instead, E. Tov highlights not only the
agreements between the Qumran texts and some of the texts previ-
ously known, such as the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch
or the LXX, but stresses the many disagreements or independent
readings that prevent these texts from being included in a particu-
lar textual group. He picks out a series of Qumran texts which he
calls non-aligned, either because they follow an inconsistent pattern
of agreements and disagreements with the Masoretic, Samaritan or
LXX text, or because they are texts in some sense independent of
these three traditions. According to E. Tov, these texts include about
15% of the documents from Qumran.*' B. Chiesa has joined in the
debate, criticising the methodology of Tov’s analysis from a tradi-
tion which is deeply rooted in textual criticism like the classical tra-
dition and particularly the Italian school. For Chiesa the textual
filiation of a document does not have to be defined by agreements
or disagreements between cach other or from unique or exceptional
variants. The latter are useful only to set a text in its cultural and
historical context, because they are ideological variants. In textual
criticism, instead, what matters is the nature of the variants and

especially the conjunctive or disjunctive mistakes that enable the tex-
tual filiation of the various witnesses to be determined. Based on this
type of reading and in spite of the plurality of texts, for B. Chiesa
it is possible to sketch out a stemma or at least make an attempt, of
the biblical texts in order to reach the base text.’ E. Ulrich opts
for a more conciliatory stance. He emphasises on the onc hand our
need for a more precise terminology in the debate, and on the other
the urgency of further studies which will specify to what extent the
various theories are adapted to the new data appearing right now
when publication of the documents has been considerably speeded

31 E. Tov, “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies: A Replay”, The
Madrid Qumran Congress I, 1992, 15-21, p. 20.

® B Chiesa, “Lextual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament”,
The Madrid Qumran Congress I, 1992, 257-72.

76 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

up. And A. S. van der Woude, without concealing the textual plu-
ralism that has become apparent in the documents from Qumran,
insists that we should not simply take for granted a similar plural-
ism in the priestly circles of Jerusalem and among the Temple scribes.
According to van der Woude, the events of 70 cz hastened the final
phase of the standardisation of the text, but this was not the result
of an historical accident or of a drastic recension by pharisaic Judaism.
Instead it had been gestating as a tendency since the beginning of
the Ist century cE in certain circles of Judaism, as can be perceived
from the corrections in the Twelve Prophets fragments from Nahal
Hever towards a proto-Masoretic type of text.*

However, beyond the present debate concerning different textual
types, their terminology and the facts of the various theories, we
should not lose sight of the re-evaluation of the text of the LXX
due to many readings being confirmed in the Hebrew documents
from Qumran and the verification of Hebrew base texts which under-
lic the great changes evident in that translation as against the Masoretic
text in books such as Samuel and Jeremiah.” Its disagreements with
the textus receptus may in theory go back to a Hebrew Vorlage which is
earlier than the standardisation of the consonantal text. Furthermore,
in some books the Greek translation was made before the final redac-
tion of the book had been completed in the form it has today in
the Masoretic text. This is why, as we shall see below, the LXX has
become the chief source of information that affects the literary crit-
icism of the Old Testament.

c) The Use of the Septuagint in Hebrew Textual Criticism

The impact of the Qumran finds on the history of the biblical text
has also produced, in parallel fashion, a transformation in the use
of the Greek Bible in biblical text criticism. According to the latest

8 EL Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical ‘Text, Text Groups, and Questions of
Canon”.

34 A. S. van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the
Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament”.

*% For the book of Jeremiah, see J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Texts of Jeremiah,
Cambridge, Mass. 1973, and E. Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary
History of the Book of Jeremiah”; and P.-M. Bogaert, “De Baruch a Jéremie. Les
deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jéremie”, Le livre de Jéremie. Le prophéte et son
milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission ed. A.-M. Bogaert, Leuven 1981, 145-67 and
168-73 respectively.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT tL

studies on the history of the biblical text, there are two principles
that should govern the use of the LXX for the edition of the Hebrew
text: (1) the existence of textual pluralism in the period before the
Common Era, and (2) the polymorphism of texts within the LXX
itself, that is to say, the differences evident in the process of trans-
lation and transmission of the various books.

Thanks to the documents from Qumran, today we are aware of
something that neither Origen nor Jerome could have suspected, in
spite of realising that there were differences between the LXX and
the Hebrew text of their time: the Greek Bible contains genuine,
textual and literary variants from the Hebrew to the extent that we
have to respect both traditions, without trying to reduce or adjust
one to the other. As a result, in some books of the Old Testament,
the Hebrew and the Greek transmit differing editions which, in the
present state of our knowledge, cannot be reduced to a common
original. In such cases the practice of resorting to the LXX for crit-
ical restoration of the Hebrew text is not only utopian but method-
ologically incorrect.** From the moment that the priority of one
tradition over the other cannot be proved, one of them cannot be
used to correct the other, because it is not always easy to distinguish
between textual evolution and the literary evolution of the various
traditions. In these cases, before attempting to restore the original it
would be more prudent to reconstruct each of the different tradi-
tions in which a particular biblical book has come to us.*” The soci-
ological dimension of the text emphasised by S. Talmon also counsels
respect for the various traditions that the different religious groups
transmit,”® a procedure which in their way the authors of the Polyglot
Bibles used in editing synoptically the different texts that were cir-
culating in the various ancient languages.

However, this allegiance of the LXX to its Vorlage in large discre-
pancies has helped to increase caution also in the case of the smaller
variants. Even so, in these latter cases, before resorting to the hypoth-
esis of a different Hebrew Vorlage, other possible explanations that
are morc plausible have to be eliminated as new critical editions of

% See D. Barthélemy, Hiudes d'histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, Freiburg—Gottingen
1978, 368-69, and Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de UAncien Testament. 1 Josué, Juges,
Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther, Freiburg~Gottingen 1982, *107
and *111.

% DP. Barthélemy, “Etudes (histoire du texte”, pp. 368-69, and Barthélemy,
“Lenchevétrement de l'histoire textuelle”, pp. 38-40.

* S. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible”, p. 327.

78 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

the LXX continue to appear and improve our knowledge of the
translation techniques of the various books and of Hebrew lexicog-
raphy and Jewish exegesis.® That is to say, the use of the LXX in
text criticism has become much more complex and refined after
Qumran. And only by taking into account all the aspects mentioned
will we avoid in future the criticisms deserved by its inappropriate
use in earher editions of the Biblia Hebraica.” In the minor discrep-
ancies and variants we have to remember some of the principles sct
out by J. W. Wevers after long years of experience as editor of the
Pentateuch in the series major of Gottingen: (1) Above all the nature
and limitations of the target language for reproducing the source
language have to be understood. We need to be aware that gram-
matical elements cannot be translated. And before searching for a
possible different Vorlage or for a theological background of the trans-
lator, the first question to be resolved must be to what extent the
discrepancies between the LXX and the Hebrew text are condi-
tioned by the linguistic possibilities of Greek to express the linguis-
tic structure and peculiar features of the source language."! (2) Before
quoting evidence from the Septuagint there must be some certainty
that the reading in question is authentic LXX and not the result of
internal corruption in the Greek or a copyist’s error. And (3) before
using the LXX properly in Hebrew text criticism, the distinctive
points of view and procedures used by the particular translator in
his translation have to be known.

To summarise, the LXX contains, in Tov’s words, “more significant
variants than all other textual witnesses together. Furthermore, apart
from a few scrolls from Qumran, the LXX is the only source that
contains a relatively large number of variants which bear on the Lit-
erary criticism of the OT”. In these last cases and with the infor-

* See J. Barr, “The Use of Evidence from the Versions”, Comparative Philology and
the Text of the Old Testament, Oxtord 1968, 238-72; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of
the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem 1981, and A. Aejmelaeus, “What can We
Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?”, On the Trial of Septuagint
Translators. Collected Essays by A. Acjmelaeus, Kampen 1993, 77-115.

* For an account of these criticisms, see Fernandez Marcos, “The Use of the
Septuagint in the Criticism of the Hebrew Bible”, 63-66.

* See J. W. Wevers, “The Use of Versions for ‘Text Criticism: The Septuagint”,
and the clear-sighted article by J. Heller, “Grenzen sprachlicher Entsprechung der
LXX. Ein Beitrag zur Ubersetzangstechnik der LXX auf dem Gebiet der Flexions-
kategorien”, MIOF 15 (1969), 234-48.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT 79

mation we now have, we should respect the autonomy and special
nature of the translation as witness of a different literary tradition
from the textus receptus. As is evident, in such cases it does not scem
reasonable to use it as a source for restoring the authentic Hebrew
text.’ However, in spite of all these reservations, in most of the
books, the LXCX variants, when used intelligently and with due cau-
tion, with the premisses set out above, can become an important aid
for biblical text criticism and for editing the Hebrew text.

Nor should there be any need to say that this subsidiary use of
the LXX to explain difficult Hebrew passages is little more than an
insignificant part of the correct use of this version, since it is not
possible to ignore other dimensions that only recently have come to
the fore: its repercussions on the literary criticism of the Old Testament,
and interest in it as an autonomous literary work within the Greck
linguistic system.

d) Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism

Reflection over recent years on the history of the biblical text and
the various text traditions has unleashed a series of studies on the
effect of textual criticism on the literary criticism of the Bible.*
Textual criticism is concerned with the transmission of the text once
it has been fixed. Literary criticism, instead, studies the period of
the literary formation of a book or set of books until the final edit.
The problem arises when parts of a biblical book or early editions
of complete books have been put into writing and circulated before
the literary editing was complete. This is the case for the LXX trans-
lation: the translation was completed at a particular time in history
and later the Hebrew texts of some of the books were re-edited with

#8 See D. Barthélemy, Critique lextuelle de VAncien Testament, p. *111: “Mais le Comité
a senti cde plus en plus clairement fa nécessité de ne pas déflorer la Septante pour
retoucher le Texte Massorétique. Aucune de ces formes traditionnelles ne doit ¢tre
traitée comme une carriére d’ot Von tirerait les bonnes legons avec lesquelles on
reconstruirail un texte original.”

Emphasised particularly by M. Hari and her team in the French translation
of the Septuagint, La Bible d’Alexandrie 1-5, Paris 1986-95.

® See E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 293-306; Tov, Textual Criticism
of the Hebrew Bible, 313-49, with an extensive bibliography, and J. Trebolle Barrera,
The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, translated from the Spanish by W. G. E.
Watson, Leiden~New York~Kéln 1998, pp. 389-97.

80 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

expansions, revisions or alterations of a different kind. Editions were
put into circulation that were later replaced by new revised editions
of the same book, revised editions which became official in the canon-
isation process of the Hebrew text. As a result, the first editions have
only been preserved for posterity either by chance, as in the case of
the texts found in Qumran, or else because they were transmitted
by non-Jewish communities, such as the Christian community in the
case of the LXX.

This problem should not be confused with the problem posed by
the existence of double texts within the Septuagintal tradition, dis-
cussed in the next chapter. In fact the double texts of Judges, Daniel,
Esther or Tobit belong to the text tradition of the LXX, most of
them have a textual connection with that translation and only indi-
rectly can they affect the literary criticism of those books. Other
cases such as Job, Proverbs or Ben Sira display problems that are
much too complex to be included in this section, since it is not easy
to prove that the differences between the Masoretic text and the
Greek translation of these books go back to editions that are different
from the Hebrew. With respect to Job, at least, my view is that these
differences are due to the translation techniques used.* Consequently,
there are differences in extent, which are now considered to belong
only to literary layers that are earlier than or parallel to what is
found in the editions of the Masoretic text, whether they are chap-
ters, sections or complete books.

Of course, in describing these phenomena no decision is being
made about the literary priority of cither text. In fact, there is a
subjective dimension in this description which is apparent when one
notices that their number and contents fluctuate, depending on the
scholar. The problem worsens because the discussion combines data
from the LXX (often supported by the Old Latin) and Qumran on
the one hand and data from the Masoretic Text, the Targum, Peshitta
and Vulgate on the other. As the problem has been posed only
recently, it is not surprising that this section is still germinating and
requires further screening which will only happen as new studics
continue to make clear the borders of these vast regions where text
criticism and literary criticism overlap. In fact, only in the light of
all the published witnesses and a comparative study of them will it
be possible to speak of different editions, different Vorlage, or to estab-

* See N. Fernandez Marcos, “The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job”, The
Book of Job, ed., W. A. M. Beuken, Leuven 1994, 251-66.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT 81

lish connections which lead to a genetic dependence among the
different texts. Accordingly, in what follows I refer briefly only to
those cases on which there is most agreement.

The book of Jeremiah

As is well known, the Greck text of Jeremiah is one-sixth shorter
than the Masoretic text, ic. about 2,700 words of the textus receplus
are missing from the Greek version. In addition, the sequence of
chapters and verses is often different in the Hebrew from the Greek
version. The dilemma facing biblical criticism is whether these
differences are due to the Greek translator or whether he translated
a Hebrew text that is not the same as the one we have. When the
fragments 4QJer? and 4QJer’, which replicate these two main fea-
tures of the LXX text, became known, it seemed clear, as is evi-
dent from the studies by J. G. Janzen and E. Tov, that the LXX
translated a Hebrew text that was close to the one found in Qumran
Cave 4." Indeed, 4QJer” contains readings from Jer. 9:22-10:18 which
are fragmentary but by good luck they confirm the sequence and
peculiar arrangement of the LXX in 10:5-10 against the Masoretic
text. Just like the LXX, Qumran transposes v. 5 after v. 9 and omits
vw. 6-8 and 10. E. Tov and P.-M. Bogaert interpret these facts in
the same way as J. G. Janzen, emphasising their repercussions for
the literary criticism of the book of Jeremiah. The translator of Jere-
miah did not shorten the Hebrew text as many exegetes had thought
but instead, to judge from the comparative study of these two texts,
it was the redactor of the Masoretic text who edited an expanded
form of a text similar to the Vorlage of the LXX. Accordingly, Jeremiah-
LXX reflects a first, shorter edition of Jeremiah, which is carlier
than the second enlarged edition transmitted by the Masorctic text.**

7 See J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Texts of Jeremiah, Cambridg
E. Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual History of the Book of. ‘Je
Sonderlund has recently opposed it in a recent study of Janzen’s thesis (se
derlund, The Greek Text of. Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis, Sheffield 1985, 193- 248), “and
opts for an intermediate position, i.e. a translator who follows a shorter Hebrew Vor-
lage who also abbreviates. However, Janzen has replied, refuting Sonderlund’s the-
sis, see J. G. Janzen, “A Critique of Sven Sonderlund’s ‘The Greek Text of Jeremiah:
A Revised Hypothesis”, BIOSCS 22 (1989), 16-47.

* See E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 319-27, and P.-M. Bogaert,
“De Baruch a Jérémie. Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jérémie”, Le
Livre de Férémie. Le prophéte et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission, ed. P.-M. Bogaert,
Leuven 1981, 168-73, and Bogaert, “Urtext, texte court et relecture: Jérémie XXXL
14-26 TM et ses préparations”, Congress Volume Lewen 1989, ed. J. A. Emerton,
Leiden 1991, 236-47.

82 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Other literary units or sections of books

Besides the book of Jeremiah, other sections of books have been
noticed in which the text of the LXX may affect their literary devel-
opment: Exodus 35-40 (LXX), a parallel account of the building of
the tabernacle which is considerably different from the Masoretic
text, unlike Exodus 25-31 (LXX) where it follows it very closely;
the transition of the book of Joshua to Judges, where Josh. 24:33
(LXX) adds a section that may reflect an earlier stage in the devel-
opment of the Masoretic text; the different redactions of the David
and Goliath story (1 Sam. 16-18), which is very much shorter in the
ancient LXX than in the Masoretic text, although the interpretation
of these facts has not yet been agreed among biblical scholars;*' the
differing chronologies reflected in the Greek and Hebrew texts of
1-2 Kings;* Ez. 36:23c-38, which is missing from Papyrus 967 of
the LXX and the Wirceburgensis codex of the Old Latin, and the
same applies to chapters 36-39 which are sct out in different ways
in this papyrus and in the Masoretic text, although some scholars
prefer to explain the omission in Papyrus 967 as a problem of inter-
nal transmission in Greek.

If these phenomena, or some of them, occurred in the period of
literary growth of the biblical book before its final edition was con-
cluded, they have to be analysed by using the methods of literary
criticism but not the criteria of text criticism. However, since they
came to light from comparing the different traditions of the biblical
text, it is necessary to combine the information obtained from both
types of criticism to reach a suitable solution to the problem. Text
criticism and literary criticism each have their methods which must

* See A. Aejmelaeus, “Sepwagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution to the
Problem of the Tabernacle Account”, Sepluagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 1992,
381-402. Aejmelaeus opts for a middle solution in which the use of a different
Vorlage and various free translation techniques are not mutually exclusive.

” See A. Rofé, “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint”,
Henoch 4 (1982), 17-36.

3 See D, Barthélemy, D. Gooding, J. Lust, E. Tov, The Story of David and Goliath,
Textual and Literary Criticism, Freiburg-Géttingen 1986.

® J. D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings,
Cambridge, Mass. 1968.

* See P.-M. Bogaert, “Le temoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’émde de la tra-
:-Ezéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967”, Bib 59 (1978), 384-95,
and E. ‘Tov, “Recensionai Differences between the MT and the LXX of Ezekiel”,
ETL 62 (1986), 89-101.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE HEBREW TEXT 83

not intrude on each other’s analysis. In any event, they brmg us to
a frontier zone of the history of the biblical text, the study of which
has been outlined barely, that demands the collaboration of different
disciplines and the application of much energy before more satis-
factory and convincing results are obtained.

Serecr BisuiocRapHy

Aejmelacus, A., “What can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?”.
RAW 99 (1987), 58-89.

Albright, W. F., “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible”. BASOR
137 (19. 27-34.

Barthélemy, D., “L’enchevétrement de Vhistoire textuelle ect de Phistoire littéraire
dans les relations existant entre la Septante ct te Texte Massorétique”. De
Sepluaginia, 1984, 2140.

Chiesa, B., “Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Old Testament”. The
Madrid Qumran Congress £, 1992, 257-72.

Cross, F. M., “A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew
Underlying the LXX”. BASOR 132 (1953), 15-26.

«5 “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical
Text”. LEF 16 (1966), 81-95.

; “The History of the Biblical ‘Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean
Desert”. HTR 57 (1964), 281-99.

Gross, F. M., and 8. Talmon (eds), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge,
Mass.-London 1975.

Fernandez Marcos, N., “La Septuaginta y los hallazgos del Desierto de Juda”.
Simposio Biblico Espatiol, 1984, 229~45.

> “The Use of the Septuagint in the Criticism of the Hebrew Bible”. Sefarad
47 (1987), 59-72.

Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., “Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-
critical Use of the Septuagint”. Textus 3 (1963), 130-58.

Howard, G., “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism”, VT 21 (1971), 440-50.

Margolis, M. L., “Complete Induction for the Identification of the Vocabulary in
the Greek Versions of the Old Testament with its Semitic Equivalents: Its
Necessity and the Means of Obtaining it”. JAOS 30 (1910), 301-12.

Olmstead, A. 'T., “Source Study and the Biblical Text”. AZSL 31 (1913/14), 1-35.

Rabin, C., “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the OT Text”. 77S ns 6
(1955), 174-82.

Sceligmann, L L., “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Masoretic
‘Text and in the Septuagint”. V7 11 (1961), 201-21.

Skehan, P. W., “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Dt 32) from Qumran”, B4SOR
136 (1954), 12-15.

Talmon, S., “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of
Qumran Manuscripts”. Textus 4 (1964), 95-132.

Tov, E., “A Modern Textual Oudook Based on the Qumran Scrolls”, HUCA 53
(1982), 11-27.

, “Some Reflections on the Hebrew Texts from which the Septuagint Was

Translated”. ZNSL 19 (1993), 107~22.

~—-, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis~Asscn~Maastricht 1992.

, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the

LXX”. Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 1992, 11-47,

84 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

~~ (ed), The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, Jerusalem 1980.

~——, “The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX: A Survey of the
Problems”. JSOT 7 (1978), 53-68.

———, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Jerusalem 1997.

Ulrich, E. C., “Horizons of Old Testament Textual Research at the Thirtieth
Anniv y of Qumran Cave 4”. CBQ 46 (1984), 613-36.

——~~, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon”.
The Madrid Qumran Congress 1, 1992, 23-41.

; “The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of their Value”.

Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 1992, 49-80.

Wevers, J. W., “The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: the Septuagint”. La
Sepluaginia 1985, 15

Woude, A. S. van der, “Pluriformity and Uniformity. Reflections on the Transmission
of the Text of the Old Testament”. Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early
Judaism, J. N. Bremmer and F. Garcia Martinez, eds, Kampen 1992, 151-69.

This can be supplemented by the extensive recent bibliography on the topic com-
piled by C. Dogniez, BS 52-70.

CHAPTER SIX

THE DOUBLE TEXTS OF THE GREEK BIBLE
AND TARGUMISM

a) Introduction

In the preceding chapter we considered Kahle’s position which he
defended throughout his life — the targumic and plural origin of the
LXX. His thesis is based on quotations from the Old Testament in
the New, and on the biblical text of Philo and Josephus. He uses
only indirectly the argument of double texts that Septuagintal tra-
dition has transmitted to us for some books. And, according to Kahle,
Acts 7:4-32 follows a popular text very close to the Samaritan
Pentateuch; the Hebrew text presupposed by the book of Jubilces
agrees at times with the Samaritan Pentateuch and sometimes with
the text of the LXX, but it rarely goes with the Hebrew textus recep-
tus. He comes to the same conclusions in the book of Enoch, the
Assumption of Moses and 4 Ezra, especially with respect to the num-
bers and chronologies used. Targum Ongelos and ‘Targum Jonathan
are only revisions based on a biblical text of carlier Targums that
were in circulation at least for private usc.' And, according to Kahle,
the same happened with the LXX. Various Greek translations were
circulating. However, at a given moment, to which the Letter of Aristeas
refers, an official revision of them was commissioned and this is

' On the existence of these earlier Targums, see A. Diez Macho, “Targum”,
EncBibl VI (1965), 865-81, p. 867. Remains of some of them have been found in
Qumran, such as the ‘Targum of Job from Cave !1, written in the time of Gamaliel
the Elder, Paul’s teacher.

The quotations and allusions in the pseudepigrapha comprise a topic that has
scarcely been studied and is, no doubt, promising. The entry is missing from the
CB by Brock-Fritsch~Jellicoe and in the BS by C. Dogniez, indicating how little it
is discussed; and it is missing from the SMS by Jellicoe and in Swete’s manual, An
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914. Even though Swete devotes
a whole chapter (pp. 369ff} to the use made of the LXX by Hellenistic authors
(Greeks and Jews) where he extends his analysis to the fragments of Jewish-Hellenistic
historians, Wisdom, Sira, 2 and 4 Maccabees, and the Jewish sections of the Sibylline
Oracles. On the use of the LXX in the Letter of Pseudo-Anisteas, see chapter 3, n. 21,
above.

86 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

basically what we call the LXCX. Nevertheless, remains of the trans-
lations earlier than the official revision have been preserved in LXX
manuscripts, in the biblical quotations in the New Testament and
in Philo, Josephus and the intertestamental pseudepigrapha.? Fewer
variants were transmitted in the Pentateuch, as the official revision
had been imposed more rigorously. However, in the rest of the LXX
many traces of this textual pluralism persist as these writings were
less binding for the Jews. Hence we have as proof the double text
of Judges or the Theodotionic text of Daniel.

As we have just seen, although Kahle mentions the double texts,
he puts no emphasis on them when developing his theory. He only
mentions the books of Judges and Danicl, ignoring others that might
have favoured his hypothesis by supporting it with new data, such
as the double texts of Tobit and Habakkuk 3. Thus it seems appro-
priate to examine systematically the double texts of the LXX in the
light of more recent studies both of the LXX and of targumism,
which since Kahle, has been the subject of new and brilliant stud-
ies by A. Diez Macho and his school.

On the other hand, the name Targum, which is used for the LXX
in recent publications,’ requires a clarification of the specific trans-
lation techniques of the Greek Bible in relation to targumism. In the
perspective of the Greek double texts of the LXX, this examination
has not been carried out systematically, not even in Kahle’s time.
The same applies to later studies. If we survey the few articles on
the Targum and the LXX we realise that they are limited to the
study of a few occasional parallels, for example the articles by

* P. Kahle, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte” (= Opera Minora), 36: “Die Geschichte
der griechischen Pentateuchiibersetzung ist gleichbedeutend mit einer allmablichen
Angleichung von Ubersetzungen, die dem alten Vulgartext nahestanden ~ von dem
sich cine Gestalt bei den Samaritanern erhielt ~ an den éextus receptus der Juden.
Die alteste Form dicser Ubersetzung rekonstruiren zu wollen, ist eine Utopie. Man.
wird im besten Fall eine oder die andere Revision dieser Ubersetzung mit eini-
ger Sicherheit bestimmen kénnen. Die weitere Verbreitung einer Textgestalt ist
zumeist erst die Folge von Uberarbeitungen und steht am Abschlusse einer gewissen
Entwicklung.”

* Diez Macho, El Targum, 8. The ‘Targums are “translations from the Hebrew
Bible into Aramaic for liturgical use in the synagogue. As they do not fulfil all these
conditions, some versions such as the LXX and Peshitta are not called Targumim,
even though the first has some ‘Targum characteristics, except that is not an Aramaic
translation” (ibed., p. 112). “Usually the Targumim, including the literal ones, such
as the Targum of job from Qumran Cave 11, have some de: of paraphrase. In
this respect the LXX has every right to be classed as a Targum” (2id., p. 113).

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 87

Brockington and Delekat on Isaiah, by Churgin on the Pentateuch
or by Kaminka on the book of Proverbs.

Brockington analyses passages in which Isaiah-LXX inserts the
idea of salvation that is not explicit in the Hebrew text. The Aramaic
Targum of Isaiah also puts the same emphasis on salvation. Accord-
ingly, both translations show the same trait of soteriological inter-
pretation, though they do not include the element of salvation in
the same passages. The similarity and the many parallels persist but
there is no clear proof of borrowing or influence between the two
versions. At most, the Targum of Isaiah and LXX depend on the
same tradition, which to a large extent must have been oral and re~
flected a common source of traditional exegesis.t A few years later,
when Delekat established the many agreements of interpretation
between Isaiah-LXX and the Targum, he wondered whether the
Greek translation of Isaiah might not be a revision of an Egyptian
Aramaic Targum, with no need to resort to the Hebrew text.>

In the Pentateuch, Churgin found a few parallels such as the dis-
tinction made by the translators between Bvo.wothptov for ‘altar of
the religion of Isracl’ and Bods for ‘idolatrous altar’,® a distinction
retained by Targum Ongelos, Targum Jonathan and Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan, since they translate the first term by madbeha’ and the sec-
ond by ’egora’. However, it has to be accepted that the parallels
collected and agreements in exegetical interpretation in the Pentateuch
are somewhat meagre.’

For Proverbs, Kaminka provides a series of parallels between the
LXX and the Targum, based on translation errors duc to the con-
fusion of certain consonants, to a different vocalisation of the Hebrew
text or due to having induced a similar basic interpretation in both
versions; and he adds a few passages in which the influence of the
Aramaic Targum in the LXX can be suspected, also insinuating that
the Targum is older and used unevenly in the Greek version.* It is

* See L. H. Brockington, “LXX and Targum”, 85-86.

* L, Delekat, “Ein Septuagintatargum”, 244: “Diese Erscheinungen zwingen dic
Frage zu stellen, ob nicht vielleicht Jes.-Gr. nur eine Supervision agyptisch-
aramaischen ‘Targums ist, die méglicherweise ohne Zuziehung des hebraischen Textes
aulgefertig wurde.”

* Churgin, “Targum and LXX”,

* A. Kaminka, “LXX und Targum zu Proverbia”, 174.

88 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

also important to note that the Aramaic translation of Proverbs
diverges from the Hebrew text more than in any other book in a
large number of passages which agree with LXX.° However, as a
counter-argument to this approach, Gerleman’s monograph" should
not be forgotten. According to it, in LXX-Prov the Hellenising ten-
dencies of the translator are evident as are the reminiscences of
Homer and Plato which are evident particularly in the vocabulary,
the reshaping of many phrases and even the insertion of Greek say-
ings and proverbs.

As we shall see at the end of the chapter, there has been a change
of approach in this respect in more recent publications, which con-
centrates either on phenomena of a midrashic type in certain books
of the LXX (Gooding) or on their translation techniques (Rabin,
Talmon, Goshen—Gottstein).

Before moving on to examine the texts that have been transmitted
in a double parallel tradition (cither whole books or only a few chap-
ters), two prior considerations need to be taken into account:

1. The first affects the distribution of these texts in the manu-
scripts. For example, the Vatican ms., both in Judges and in Tobit
and Daniel is the one transmitting the shortest recension. This ten-
dency to shorten the Vatican (which also lacks the two books of
Maccabees) has already found a response in other publications.''
Apart from Judges, which presents more complex problems, this short
revision is followed by most of the minuscule mss.

2. The books of Daniel and Ezra~Nehemiah are the only two in
the whole Bible of which we have no Targums, and are precisely
the two books with part of the canonical text in Aramaic.

b) Double Texts in the Septuagint

The book of Daniel (LXX and Theodotion)

Until a few years ago the two parallel texts of the book of Daniel
were not a problem in terms of the origin of the LXX; the text
called 8’ belonged ~ so it was thought — to Theodotion and at a
certain moment (between the 3rd and 4th century cE, since Pap 967

° A. Kaminka, “LXX und Targum zu Proverbia”, 171.
““'G. Gerleman, Studies in the Sepiuagint II: Proverbs, Lund 1956.
""S, Jellicoe, “The Hesychian Recension Reconsidered”, JBL 82 (1963), 409-18.

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 89

still contains the Septuagintal translation) it replaced the original
translation. However, in 1966, A. Schmitt, one of Zicgler’s disciples,
published a monograph that upset this traditional image of the
Theodotion of Daniel.'? The germ of this work, carried out at Ziegler’s
request and directed by him, was already present in the edition of
Daniel that he published for the Gottingen scries.'’ Ziegler’s intu-
ition was confirmed by Schmitt’s analysis. In text 8’ of Daniel many
words can be noticed which do not occur (or occur only rarely) in
the LXX whereas they are attested in Symmachus. Many other indi-
cations point in this direction although they are not completely deci-
sive, given our scant knowledge of Symmachus and his translation
techniques. The deuterocanonical parts of the book (Susannah, Hymn
of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) indicate special contact
with this translator. However, undoubtedly the most sensational con-
clusion is the denial of Theodotion’s literary paternity for this text."
In spite of that, the relationship between the two parallel texts of
Daniel remains unexplained, although it is not likely that they go
back to a Targumic original. Instead, the various Greek texts of
Daniel need to be analysed in the light of new texts of the book of
Daniel which have been found in Qumran Cave 4, though their
textual stratification has yet to be established."

Schmitt’s thesis opens the way for a solution to the problem of
proto-Thcodotion, due to the presence of Theodotionic readings in
the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, i.e. prior to the his-
torical Theodotion.'® Since, as we shall sce in the following chap-
ters, successive revisions of the LXX increasingly complicate this

Schmitt, Stamm der sogenannte “O’”-Text.

'3 J. Ziegler, Susanna-Daniel-Bel et Draco. Sepuaginta XVI, 2, Gottingen 1954, 28,
nl,

“™ A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte “0’”-Text, 110-12: “Schon allein die Wortunter-
suchung im 3. Kapitel (s. 102-107) zeigt eindeutig, dass auch dieser Teil des 0’-
Textes nichts mit Theodotion zu tun hat” (p. 112), On the reservations expressed
by D. Barthélemy regarding these conclusions by Schmitt, see chapter 9, n. 35.
Busto Saiz has also reacted against Schmitt’s thesis (“El texto teodocidnico de Daniel
y la traduccién de Simaco”) and rejects his suggestion that this text is related to
Symmachus. However, Schmitt reaffirms his position in a recent article: see A, Schmitt,
“Die griechische Danieltexte (“8 und o’) und das Theodotionproblem”, BZ 36
(1992), 1-29.

'5 See E. Ulrich, “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 1: A Preliminary
Edition of 4QDan*”, BASOR 268 (1987), 17-37, and Ulrich, “Part 2: Preliminary
Editions of 4QDan” and 4QDan”, BASOR 274 (1989), 3-26.

‘8 See chapter 8.

90 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

stage of transmission, the only firm gain in this territory seems to
be the moment of the fluctuation of the traditional image of the
three Jewish translators as transmitted by the ancient sources. In the
case of Daniel, the translation of the LXX was inadequate enough
to be revised and replaced by @’. Even so, Montgomery places the
reviser of @ on a par with Ongelos (he calls him the Hellenistic
Ongelos). This revision was to be preceded by the oral Targums
and does not exclude the possibility that there were literary prede-
cessors of the historical Thcodotion.””

Recent studies by Hamm, Schiipphaus, Koch and Grelot'® have
not substantially altered the approaches of Montgomery. Papyrus
967, edited by Hamm in its Daniel section, provides the pre-Hexaplaric
text of LXX with scarcely any gaps; however, sometimes it follows
the Hebrew text and text @’ against LXX. Should we postulate a
common Vorlage for the LXX and text @ in Daniel?

Schiipphaus limits his study to the deuterocanonical sections, accord-
ing to text 0’ this would suppose a reshaping of content and style
of the Septuagintal version. Koch notes how text @’ brings proper
names up to date; the author of this text would come from Syria
rather than from Egypt. More specifically, his location would prob-
ably be one of the Hellenised cities of the Syro-Mesopotamian region
in the transition period between Seleucid and Roman control. How-
ever, Koch accepts that more extensive research is required to resolve
the problem.

For Grelot, Dan 4-LXX was translated from Hebrew due to the
revival of that language because of the Maccabean revolt and the
Qumran movement. Another Greek translator earlier than the New
Testament took as the basis of his translation the main text in
Hebrew—Aramaic which the synod of Yamnia was later to canonise;
this was the origin of text 8’ of Daniel.

'7 J. A. Montgomery, Daniel, 35ff., possibly the best study so far on the Greek
texts of Daniel. On the problem. of Proto-Pheodotion he concludes (p. 50): “That
there existed some such body of received translation before the Christian age lies
beyond doubt; but we must not too quickly assume a written version. Very much
can be explained by the hypothesis of a Hellenistic oral Targum, necessary in the
first place for correction of faulty renderings, and specially of lacunae in G. (it is
found that early ‘Theodotionic’ readings generally appear im such cases). And then
we may link up this oral tradition of the early part of the 2d. Christian cent. He
is the Heilenistic Onkelos, whose work was facilitated by the presence of the
possessed by him memoniter. Of course such a theory does not exclude
aility of literary predecessors of the historical Theodotion.”
se Select Bibliography.

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 91

It would seem that all the studies mentioned ignore or do not
accept as convincing Barthélemy’s conclusions in his important mono-
graph on ‘the forerunners of Aquila’:'® ‘Theodotion is party leader
of the Koyé recension, Jonathan ben ‘Uzziel, the only representa-
tive of the school of that name. His work belongs to the wider frame-
work of the revision of the early LXX to fit it to the Hebrew text
current in Palestine in the Ist century cE. By putting back the period
of this revision by more than a century, a plausible explanation is
found for the presence of Theodotionic readings in the New Testarnent
and in 2nd century Christian writers. M. Delcor uses Barthélemy’s
explanation in his commentary on the book of Daniel.”

However, on this argument there remains an impasse which has
not been satisfactorily resolved, nor will it until all the material at-
tributed to Theodotion has undergone careful cxamination.?! If
Schmitt’s thesis is confirmed, that text 6’ of Daniel does not belong to
Theodotion, it will not belong to the kaiye revision cither. It would
be petitio principit inasmuch as its belonging to this recension has been
obtained by comparison with the Theodotionic material we have
from which precisely the longest text, text @ of Daniel, would have
to be excluded. At present the most obvious solution is to look for
it along the lines of greater flexibility in respect of attributions to
the Hexapla and in respect of the actual structure of these revisions.
Later revisions of the same book or even different editions of it can-
not be excluded.”? However, all that this tells us is that we are still
far from finding a solution for the two parallel texts of Daniel. If,
as Schmitt claims against traditional opinion, text 8’ is not from
Theodotion, at a later stage rescarch must be carried out as to which
translation school its author belongs or to which textual tradition its
reviser is closest. When editing the book of Esther, Hanhart radi-—
calised the problem even more by insisting on the need for specific
research to establish on more solid criteria the priority of the

' ‘The chapter on Aquila in D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, VTS 10 (1963).

* M, Delcor, Le libre de Daniel, Paris 1971.

“| For a survey of the most important fragments attributed to Theodotion, s
A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte “O”-Text, 112: Anhang. In his review of D. Barthélemy,
Les Devanciers d’Aquila, Wevers expresses reservations about text-@ of Daniel belong-
ing to the xatye recension; J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta Forschungen seit 1954. TR NF
33 (1968), 71: “Nicht so eindeutig ist der Beweis bei cinigen Mss fiir Chron, bei
Cant und dem Theod. Text von Daniel” (i.e. the proof that it also belongs to the
katye recension).

® See D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 156-57.

92 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Septuagintal text of Daniel: “The obvious similarity between the
translation style of ‘text L’ of Esther and of ‘text-o’ of Daniel requires
a special examination, particularly in respect of the problem of
whether the stated priority of ‘text-o’ as against ‘text-6’ in Daniel
rests on the same certain criteria as the priority of ‘text-o’ against
‘text-L’ of Esther.”**

From the point of view that interests us here, ie. the Greek dou-
ble texts and targumism, it is appropriate to emphasise the results
of two recent studies, although the whole problem of the history of
the text in the book of Daniel is still far from being satisfactorily
resolved. Afier a study of the Greck texts of Daniel and especially
of Papyrus 967, Bogaert concludes that Theodotion’s work is some-
times evident as a new translation and sometimes as a careful revi-
sion of his Septuagintal forerunner.” As for Jeansonne, he insists that
the primitive LXX of Daniel 7-12 makes every effort to translate
the underlying Semitic text with rigorous precision and it does not
necessarily have to coincide with the actual Masoretic text. At all
events, however, in the translation techniques there is no indication
of any kind of theological bias corresponding to what can be found
in the Targumim.”*

The double text of Tobit

The book of Tobit has reached us in three text forms, two of them
complete (G; and Gy) and one incomplete (Gm). The first has been
transmitted in most of the Greek manuscripts, followed by the
Coptic-Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Syro-Hexaplaric versions;
the second form has been transmitted by Codex Sinaiticus and the
Old Latin, which is closely related to Sinaiticus. Finally, the third

* R. Hanhart, Esther. Septuaginta VIM, 3, Gottingen 1966, 91 n. 3: “Die oflensichtliche
Ahnlichkeit des Ubersetzungscharakter im ‘L-Text’ von Est und im “o’-Text” von
Dan bediirfie einer besonderen Untersuchung, vor allem hinsichtlich der Frage, ob
die behauptete Prionitat des “o’-Textes” gegeniiber dem “€’-Text” in Dan auf ebenso
sicheren Kri n beruht wie die Prioritat des “o-Textes” gegeniiber dem “L-Text”
in Est (vgl s. & . A similar opinion is expressed by J. W. Wevers, in “Septuaginta
Forschungen seit 1954”, 7R NF 33 (1968), 32: “Der doppelte Daniecl-text mit ver-
schiedener Hexaplatradition zeigt die dringende Notwendigkeit, sich mit diesem
Problem zu beschaftigen.”

* “Comparée a la premiére traduction de Daniel (967) Pocuvre de “Theodotion’
apparait tantét comme une nouvelle traduction, tant6t comme une révision atten-
tive de oeuvre de son prédécesseur,” P.-M. Bogaert, “Relecture et refonte histori-
cisante”, 202-203.

*® See S. P. Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12, 131-33.

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 93!

form, which is closer to the second than to the first, transmits part
of it in a few minuscule manuscripts.”° The relationship among the
three text forms has been established by Hanhart in connection with
his critical edition of the book as follows: their agreements are so
important that mutual interdependence has to be assumed; however,
on the other hand their differences are so serious that their inter-
relationship cannot be defined as a recension but instead they are
autonomous textual forms.””

Brooke ~ McLean — Thackeray, instead, printed both texts separately
plus the text of the Old Latin.** Recently, J. R. Busto devoted a
monograph to the question of the priority of the two texts. Against
the widespread idea in biblical textual criticism since de Lagarde
that the short text has priority as a text tends to expand in the

course of transmission, Bust has reached the conclusion that the short
text of the Vatican—Alexandrian is the result of a conscious revision
of the Alexandrian text, a revision which tends to improve that pop-
ular translation stylistically, making it more readable to a Greek pub-
lic.? This means that for the moment there are no data for supposing
a targumic origin of the book”? whereas on the other hand many
other indications indicate the textual dependence of the three forms.
The problem of critical restoration becomes more difficult because
the transmission is not uniform (part is in Greek and part is in Latin)
and because the transitional links that would allow us to go back to

* See. R. Hanhart, Sepiuaginia VII, 5, Tobit, Gottingen 1983, 31°36.

27 “Der griechische ‘ext ist in zwei, zum ‘Teil in drei Textlormen uberliefert,
deren teilweise Ubereinstimmungen zwar dermassen eindeutig sind, dass gegenseit-
ige Abhéangigkeit mit Sicherheit angenommen werden muss, deren Uhterschiede
aber so tiefgreifend sind, dass ihr Verhaltnis zueinander nicht als Rezension son-
dern als selbstiindige ‘Textform bestimmt werden muss.” See R. Hanhart, Text und
Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit, 1).

AL EB. McLean and H. St J. Uhackeray, The Old Testament in Greek:
VIII Esther, Judit, Tobit, Cambridge 1940.

2 sot J. R. Busto Saiz, El doble texto griego de Tobit, Analysing a particular pas-

sso has reached the conclusion that the reading transmitted by S in ‘Tobit
; see L. Rosso, “Un’antica variante del libro di Tobit (Tob VII, 9)”,
Rivista degli Studi Oriental 50 (1976), 73-89. Busto Saiz also analyses a series of read
ings from the Old Latin which can help in recovering the authentic text of ‘Tobit,
J. R. Busto Saiz, “Algunas aportaciones de la Vetus Latina para una nueva edi-
cién critica del libro de Tobit”, Sefarad 38 (1978), 53-69. However, against these
suggestions, R. Hanhart, the editor of the book, who utterly gives up reconstruct-
ing the original text of Tobit, transfers the problem to the level of textual history
and commentary on the book.

As insinuated by A. Diez Macho, “Targum y Nuevo testamento”,
Eugene - Tisserant, SY 231, Rome 1964, 153-85,

Mélanges

94 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

the original text are missing.5' On the other hand, it must not be
forgotten that the Targums of the Hagiographers never enjoyed
official recognition. With the exception of Esther, they were not used
in the liturgical service of the synagogue, a fact which makes difficult
the hypothesis of those who consider the second form of the text as
a homiletic expansion of the first; and lastly, they were not produced
until a very late period.” Naturally these results have to be open to
the new data from the recently published Hebrew and Aramaic frag-
ments from Qumran as well as to any other new source of knowledge.

The book of Judges

Lagarde inaugurated the plan of printing the texts of A and B sep-
arately,** but for reasons of space he only did this in chapters 1~5.°*
In this double text Kahle sces the confirmation of his theory on the
targumic origin of the LXX.* For Moore also they are two different
traditions: the more recent B tradition could have made use of the
A tradition, but it is a new tradition used by Cyril of Alexandria in
the 4th century cE against the rest of the Egyptian Fathers before
him who cite the text of A.*° Even so, Pretzl, Soisalon-Soininen and
others insist that the similarities between the two texts is so great
that they cannot be different translations but separate ‘recensions’ of
the same translation.” Lagarde, Kahle and Moore focused their atten-
tion on the differences, which are chiefly evident in difficult pas-
sages, but ignored the many similarities in language and construction
between both texts. These similarities indicate a common archetype
which: through its successors and, apparently, independent stages of
revision, has ended up producing the texts of A and B that we have.
Furthermore, methodologically, today familics of manuscripts rathcr

3 See R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichle des Buches Tobit, 11-20.

* See Bible Translations in “Encyclopaedia Judaica”. Although, some of these, such
as the Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 4, are very old and often included
ancient traditions of Palestinian origin.

3 Qumran Cave 4. XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. DJD XIX, ed. M. Broshi, E. Eshel,
J. Fitzmyer et al, Oxford 1995, 1-76.

% P. de Lagarde, Septuaginta-Siudien I, 1891, Gottingen.

% P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 235: “Whoever is acquainted with conditions pre-
vailing in older Targums at a time before an authoritative text was fixed will re
ognize in these two Greek texts typical examples of two forms of an old Targum.”

“ G, F. Moore, Judges, XLVI.

* See Select Bibliography and E. Jenni, “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den
Bichern Josua bis Kénige”, TR NF 27 (1961), 20-32, especially pp. 24ff-

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 95

than isolated manuscripts are compared, so that the original single
tradition which underwent various forms of revision is even more
obvious. The articles by Schreiner and Saenz-Badillos point in this
direction. Bodine’s monograph, the most recent overall study of the
topic, has resolved most of the difficulty by concluding that the Greek
text of the family of manuscripts represented by B corresponds to
the Theodotionic or xaiye recension of the original LXX made at
the turn of the era in order to make it agree with the Hebrew text
current at the time. Nor does family A represent the LXX; instead
it is a late revision which is very close to the Hexaplaric recension.
The original LXX has survived chiefly in the group of Lucianic
manuscripts and in the Old Latin, and in a special way in those
passages where the two traditions coincide.”

Habakkuk 3 in the LXX and in Codex Barberini

The parallel text to the LXX that six manuscripts provide for
Habakkuk 3 has been a veritable puzzle for Septuagintalists since
the time of Montfaucon, who attributed it to the septima mentioned
by Origen in the Hexapla."’ It is strange that Kahle did not pay
attention to it, since at first glance it seems a suitable piece for the
shaping of his theory. I have discussed this text, traditionally called
Barberini because of the main manuscripts that transmit it, in another
monograph.*! After proving that it is a different translation from the
LXX — not merely a revision ~ and that it does not translate an
Aramaic Targum, he concluded that this discordant text belongs to
the translation school of Symmachus. Its lexicon and the translation
techniques used confirm this. Many other indications make this result
likely, such as the contacts it shows with the Lucianic recension, with
the Coptic versions and Codex Washingonianus (W) and with the Vulgate.
However, that text cannot be the same as the version by Symmachus

* See Select Bibliography. It was not possible to consult the doctoral thesis by
J. H. Ludlum, “The Dual Greek Text”.

*® See W. R. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges, 134-36 and 185-86.

“ The manuscripts in question are uncials, the Codex Venetus (V) of the 13th cen-
tury and five min s: mss 62, 86, 147 and 107 {see J. Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae.
Septuaginta. XIII, Gottingen 1967, 273ff.), and the ms. Fondo San Salvatore 118 of the
University Library of M a; see W. Baars, “A New Witness to the Text of the
Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk HI”, VT 15 (1965), 381-82. It ts called ‘text
Barberini’ as it appears in ms. 86 = Barberinus graecus 549 (9th~10th cents) of the
Vatican Library in Rome.

*"N, Fernandez Marcos, “El texto Barberini de Habacuc HI reconsiderado”.

96 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

as we know it from the Hexaplaric fragments preserved in Habakkuk 3.
This poses new questions about the existence of a school of Symmachus
or perhaps even ‘predecessors’ of that translator, just as recently they
have been discovered for Aquila and Theodotion. By setting the
Barberini text of Habakkuk 3 within the circles of influence of the
translator Symmachus, the existence of two competing translations
at the level of the origins of the LXX is discarded. This Barberini
text is later than that of the LXCX; its vocabulary is close to that of
Symmachus and in any case to that of later books of the LXX. As
a result it does not affect the problem of the targumic origins of the
Greek version.”

Duplicates mm the books of Kings

The problems posed by the text of the LXCX in these books are old
and still await a solution that will be facilitated by the full publica-
tion of a Hebrew text found in Qumran (4QSam*)." All the dupli-
cates belong to the yy section (= 3 Kgs 2:12-21:43) in Thackeray’s
classification.** Gooding has written several articles on the books oj
LXX-Kings and in particular on one of these duplicates.” Apparently,
the multiple rearrangements of material in 3 Kings correspond to
an intentional pattern of reorganising the whole book, a pattern
which goes far beyond this particular book. This reinterpretation and
redistribution of material penetrated the Greek text as a result of a
later revision and not at the time of its original translation. The rea-
son for the first two duplicates lies in the chronological differences
between the LXX and the Hebrew text. The LXX, which follows

*® An extensive bibliography on the topic is to be found in N. Fernandez Marcos,
“El texto Barberini de Habacuc Ii reconsiderado”.

*® Under the direction of Professor Frank Cross in the series “Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert”. E. C. Ulrich has studied these texts and has provided a foretaste
of his results in “4QSam* and Septuagintal Research”, BIOSCS 8 (1975), 24-39.
See also E. C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, Missoula, Mont. 1978,
and E. Tov (ed.), The Hebrew and Greek Texis of Samuel, Jerusalem 1980.

™ See H. St J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, London 1923, 114

a = 1 Kgs

BB = 2 Kgs i:1-9:1

br = 2 Kgs 11:2-3 Kgs 2:11

= 3 Kgs 2:12-21:43
B= = 3 Kgs 22-4 Kgs. According to Thackeray’s theory, in the first Alexandrian
translation of these books the third and fifth parts were omitted as unedifying. A
later translator, probably ‘Theodotion, filled in these gaps. See also J. A. Montgomery
and H. Gehman, Kings, ICC, 20.
® See CB 107- 108. and D. W. Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”.

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 97

its own chronological system, has a translation of the summary of
Josaphat’s reign in 16:28a-h and a different translation of the same
summary according to the Masoretic text in 22:41-51. Similarly, the
LXX, following its own chronology, places a translation of the intro-
duction to the reign of Joram in 4 Kgs 1:18a-d and following the
Masoretic text inserts another different translation of the same intro-
duction in 4 Kgs 3:1-3.

In both cases they are different translations from different hands:
the original LXX, which corresponds to a non-Masoretic Hebrew
Vorlage, and a second translation, which is closer to the Masoretic
text and has all the signs of being more recent.

Another type of duplicate is due to midrashic exegesis and tends
to develop the Leitmotta of Solomon’s wisdom. For example, the dupli-
cate of 3 Kgs 12:24a-z is inserted in order to vilify Jeroboam.

The peculiar interpretations of this part of 3 Kings fit well into
the spirit of haggadic midrash which at times allows itself the free-
dom to invent, leaving some margin to the imagination of the homilist.
This version has a certain similarity with that of the author of
Chronicles compared with that of Samuel-Kings. Chronicles is not
a commentary on Samucl—Kings, whereas LXX-3 Kgs is preciscly
a commentary on LXX-~-1 Kgs. Chronicles never allows a favourable
narrative to come after an unfavourable one about the same per-
son. This is typical of midrash which already presupposes an official
biblical text. Therefore 3 Kings and its Hebrew Vorlage in the pre-
sent state of our knowledge can best be described as hybrid texts:
partly biblical text and partly haggadic midrash. To this mix has to
be added the clement of targumic interpretation which inevitably
accompanies every translation of a biblical text and which in 3 Kings
has been inserted in two stages:

1. at the first level of the original translation,

2. on the occasion of duplicate translations and their inclusion in
the text.®

4 D. W. Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”. Recently, ‘I’. Muraoka has
formulated the hypothesis of a double translator for the books of Kings, though it
differs from Thackeray’s. In fact, Thackeray suggested different translations for the
majority text of the other sections of the books. Muraoka, instead, after admitting
the recensional nature of the majority text in these two sections, proposes different
translators for the minority text (boc, e2) of By, y8 and for the majority text of the
other sections of the books. However, D. Barthélemy rejects Muraoka’s new hypoth-
esis in “Prise de position sur les autres communications du colloque de Los Angeles”,
Etudes d'histoire du texte de Vancien Testament, Fribourg-Gittingen 1978, 255-66.

98 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

However, this midrashic or targumic interpretation of the dupli-
cates of Kings has been vigorously opposed by Trebolle in a series
of studies on these books which combine the results of textual crit-
icism with the progress made by literary criticism. The LXX of
I Kings, with its duplicates and different chronology, reflects a textual
type which is different from those transmitted by the Masoretic text.
These results agree better with the image of textual pluralism which
the Qumran documents have disclosed for some biblical books such
as Samuel or Jeremiah. Jn this hypothesis, the textual pluralism which
Kahle postulated for the origins of the LXX would have to be trans-
ferred to the stage and fluctuation of the Hebrew text at the moment
when the translation was being made, a translation which shows
itsclf to be faithful to its Vorlage as new texts gradually emerge from
the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

With the parallel texts analysed so far, the problem of double texts
in the LXX is not exhausted. In several deuterocanonical books such
as Danicl, Esther, Baruch, there are several Greek supplements to
the parts. translated from Hebrew. However, none of these additions
has its Hebrew cquivalent in the original. An exception is LXX-
| Ezra which is a different edition from Hebrew Chronicles-Ezra—
Nehemiah. Most of it is a faithful translation, but with additions,
deletions and a new arrangement of material. Only 1 Ezra 3:1-5:6,
the story .of the three bodyguards of king Darius, has no equivalent
in Hebrew.” The problem posed by LXX-1] Ezra and its relation-
ship to LXX-2 Ezra has no easy solution. For Howorth, 1 Ezra would
be the original LXX translation, whereas 2 Ezra would be the trans-
lation by Theodotion which replaced the LXX in one stage of trans-
mission.*® Since no LXX translator took so many liberties as those

© See J. Trebolle, Salomén y Jerobodn. Historia de la recensiin y redaccién de 1 Reyes
2-12, 14, Salamanca~Jerusalem. 1980. For other publications by the same author
which use the same line of research, see C. Dogniez, BS, 168-69. For the story of
Yavid and Goliath there is also general agreement on the literal character of the
Greck version and the shortened form of its Vorlage: see D. Barthélemy, D. W.
Gooding, J. Lust and E. Tov, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary
Criticism. Papers of a Joint Venture, Fribourg-Géttingen 1986, 156.

*® For the equivalents between Greek and Hebrew, H. B. Swete, An fnirodue-
tion to the Old Testament in Greek, 26518, and R. Hanhart, Hsdrae Liber I. Sepiuaginia
VUE, 7, Gottingen 1974, 54.

* See H. H. Howorth, “The Apocryphal Book Esdras A and the LXX”, PSBA
23 (1901), 147-59.

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 99

we note in [ Ezra in relation to the original, it must be supposed
that two editions of the book in Hebrew circulated and the one
finally accepted in the Hebrew canon was the longer. Other theories
about the relation between 1 and 2 Ezra on the one hand and the
Hebrew books Ghronicles-Ezra~Nehemiah on the other, can be seen
in Pfeiffer and Jellicoc.*' This involved problem has no acceptable
solution, as has been shown by the sober conclusions reached by
Hanhart, editor of the book of 1 Ezra in the editio maior of Géttingen:”
the comparison between | and 2 Ezra cannot show with certainty
a literary dependence between the two texts.

At those points where a weak contact between the two is notice-
able, the text of 2 Ezra can be clearly defined as secondary to the
text of | Ezra. However, in principle the independence of both texts
has to be preserved as the basis for restoring the original text of
| Ezra, common textual forms being attributed to the influence of
2 Ezra precisely because it is a more faithful translation than the older
one of Ezra.

The whole book of Esther has been published by R. Hanhart in
double text form, known as text 0’ and text L. According to Hanhart,
who has studied the whole manuscript translation of the book, text
L is not a recension of text o’ but a reworking of the Greek trans-
lation of Esther based largely on text o’. It is not the only rework-
ing of the text as soon others were to emerge: onc of them corresponds
to the Vorlage of the Old Latin and traces of a third are to be found
in the text known by Josephus. Since none of these text forms is
explained independently of text 0’, they all go back to a single under-
lying text of the book of Esther.*

Exodus 35-40 matches the sequence of Exodus 25~31, where
instructions are given for the building of the tabernacle. However,
whereas in Exodus 25-31 the LXX generally follows the sequence

* R.H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times wilh an Introduction to the Apocrypha,
New York 1949, 246~50.

5! SMS 29h; CB 110-12, and C. Dogniez, BS 171-74.

® R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des I Esrabuches, 17-18.

% Sec R. Hanhart, Sepinaginta. VHI/3 Esther, Gottingen 1966, 87-99, p. 99: “Die
aus dem “L-Text”, der altlat. Uberlieferung und Josephus bruchstiickhaft erkennbare
Existenz, weiterer griechischer Textformen neben dem o’-Text
dieser Textformen unabhangig vom o’-Text erklarbart ist -trorz ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit
ein Beweis nicht gegen, sondern ftir dic Existenz cines einheitlichen, allgemein
anerkanaten und verbreiteten griechischen Grundtextes des Est-Buches”. For stud-
ies after Hanhart’s critical edition, see C. Dogniex BS 174-77.

100 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

of the Masoretic text, in Exodus 35-40 there are significant changes
which do not correspond to the translation techniques used by the
translators of the Pentateuch. A summary of the main theories explain-
ing this phenomenon can be found in the introduction to the trans-
lation of this book in the Bible in Alexandria‘ the intervention of two
translators from different periods as responsible for the present text
of the Greck version (J. Popper); a single translator for both scc-
tions, who was responsible for the main divergences from the Masoretic
text (A. H. Finn); a single translator who, however, included a very
early rearrangement of the original Greek text (D. W. Gooding).®
The problem cannot be considered as resolved, and perhaps we have
to wait for new data or for the light that can be thrown on this
part of Exodus by the textual tradition of the Old Latin to acquire
more accurate results. Wevers docs not consider it necessary to pos-
tulate a different Vorlage for the consonantal text from the one we
have, as the origin of the version of Exodus 35-40. He even dares
to suggest that this Greck text was created by a different translator
and was later than the translation of Exodus 25--31.5° And Aejmelacus
thinks that the hypothesis of a different Vorlage and the hypothesis
of different translation techniques are not necessarily mutually exclu-
sive. It is possible that both phenomena were operative in the same
text: a different Vorlage and a freer translation technique.”

Yet, in the ‘Greek text II’ of Sira (represented by the Complutensian
which follows ms. 248) some have seen traces of a new Greck trans-
lation of the book of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus).*’ But, it seems, these
conclusions were false due to using defective editions. For Ziegler,
editor of the book in the series major of Gottingen, this text is not a
new independent translation. Its author used the text of Greek I and
translated afresh where he thought necessary. However, Ziegler
assumes that several translations were in circulation at least for the
first part of the book - when they began to show that the first part

“4 La Bible d’Alexandrie. 2 L’Exode, ed. A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, Paris
1989, 61-67.

*® See D. W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle: Translations and Textual Problems
of the Greek Exodus, Gambridge 1959, 99-101.

“6 J. W. Wevers, “The Building of the Tabernacle”, JNSL 19 (1993), 123-31.

7 A. Aejmelacus, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques”, 398: “It is possible to
have both {ree translation and different Vorlage in the same text. And this is the
case in the tabernacle account.”

* J. Ziegler, Sapientia lesu Filii Strach. Septuaginta XH, 2, Gattingen 1965, 73.

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 101

does not correspond to the Hebrew — translations which have left
their mark in the recensions of Lucian and Origen and especially in
the Old Latin.** Furthermore, Thiele suspects that the Vorlage of the
Old Latin of Sira was a particular Greek text that is no longer pre-
served except in fragments through Greek text II, because it was
displaced by the success of the more popular Greek text.

c) Targumism

An extensive bibliography on targumism has been produced due, in
part, to the discovery in 1956 of the Palestine Targum Neophyti I
by professor A. Dicz Macho.®! However, perhaps the best descrip-
tion of targumism as a general excgetical movement is to be found
in the work by Le Déaut.” This type of hermeneutics tends to make
the biblical text more comprehensible to a particular audience; hence
the addition of a subject, a complement, a pronoun or even a change
of person in a verb in order to make the narrative more lively. This
tendency also gives rise to a penchant for glosses. ‘These explanations
are often made with the help of parallel passages. ‘This associative
exegesis alone explains a sufficient number of variants in the LXX."

® J. Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 74: “So ist es auch nicht richtig, von nur
einer aweiten griech. Ubersetazung zu sprechen, sondern es ist anzunchmen, dass
mehrere griech. Ubersetzungen im Umlauf waren, von denen uns namenilich im
ersten Teil des Buches ziemlich umfangreiche Uberreste in der OL-Rezension und
vor allem in La iiberliefert sind.” On the fluctuation of the text of Sira in the first
centuries of its history, see J. W. Wevers, “Septuaginta Forschungen seit 1954”, TR
NF 33 (1968), 41ff Wevers notes that Greek text Il must be prior to the New
Testament since Sir 48, 10° is cited by Lk. 1:17: “In der Tat ist Gr If sicher alter
als das NT und kénnte gut aus der Zeit v. Chr. sein,” ibid. 42. Parallel texts can
also be found in pseudepigraphical books such as the “Testament of Abraham”,
preserved in two recensions (sce M. R. James, The Testament of Abraham, Cambridge
1892, and M.-Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham, Leiden 1973), or the “Testament of
the ‘I'welve Patriarchs” (see R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament, Il, Oxford 1913, 288ff, and M. de Jonge, Yestamenta XH Patriarcharum
edited according to Cambridge University Library Ms If 1.24 fol. 203a~262b, Leiden 1970).

S! See Select Bibliography and the introductions to the edition of ms. Neophyti
1 by A. Diez Macho. In addition, B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature,
vol. 1, New York 1972, can be consulted, if properly used and corrected from the
criticisms published by W. Baars in his review in VT 25,1] (1975), 124-28; vol. IL,
1977 and vol. HI, 1990.

® Le Déaut, “Un phénoméne spontané de l"herméneutique juive ancienne”, and
in A. Diez Macho, Al Targum, 231.

® See IL. Seeligmann, “Indications of Editorial Alterations and Adaptation in
the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint”, VF 11 (1961), 201-21.

102 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

There is a tendency to bring the proper names of places and peo-
ple up to date, even identifying anonymous or little-known persons
with famous figures from biblical history. As an indication of a pop-
ular mentality it increases the miraculous clement in the narratives.
The liturgical context explains the mutual influence between pas-
sages from the Torah and the Prophets which were read on the
same day. Le Déaut ends by defining targumism in this sense as
“the combination of spontaneous and unconscious phenomena which
arise from the first contact of the old translator with the biblical text
when it is a liturgical version”. It is midrash, but at the level of first
contact with the text.“

As is evident, in this wide sense one can speak of the LXX as a
Targum and even as the first Targum. And the influence of Jewish
hermeneutics on the Septuagintal version has been emphasised espe-
cially by certain Jewish scholars since Frankel, Prijs and Seeligmann,”
until the more recent studies by Goshen-Gottstein and Rabin in con-
nection with the biblical project of the Hebrew University of Jeru-
salem," and from a different perspective by D. Gooding.

This inclusion of targumic elements in the LXX happens in a
very sober and moderate way to the point that in some books it is
barely noticeable especially if we compare them with the procedure
and translation techniques used in Aramaic Targums. On the other
hand, from the analysis of double texts that we have sketched out
in the present state of research, no proof is forthcoming about the
targumic origin of the LXX as Kahle understood it. The translation
of the Pentateuch, if we except the last chapters of Exodus,’” shows
a fundamental unity even in a period when textual pluralism was
not yet a major problem.

Of all the parallel texts discussed, in very few cases can one speak
of different translations (Exodus 35—-40?, Habakkuk 3, Daniel?). And
even in these it can be shown that a chronologically different trans-
lation is later than another, ic. that they were not in competition

™ R. Bloch, Midrash in DBS V, 1957, 1263-81. .

® Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der LXX, Leipzig 1941; Frankel, Uber den Einfluss der
palistinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851; L. Prijs, Judische
Tradition in der LXX, Leiden 1948, and I. L. Seeligmann (sce note 62 above).

* M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The ‘Text-
critical Use of Septuagint”, Textus 3 (1963), 130-59; Ch. Rabin, “The Translation
Process and the Character of the LXX”, Textus 6 (1968), 1-27.

* D. W. Gooding, “Problems of Text and Midrash”.

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 103

from the beginning as different options. In the rest of the double
texts, one of them is clearly a revision of the other, or both are revi-
sions of a common text now lost, in view of the number of simi-
larities between them. Almost always a single basic text is the best
explanation for the later development of the history of the text.

Duplicates originated and were transmitted for various reasons
depending on the books and do not correspond to a single cause.
However, the underlying unity of the LXX tradition prevents pro-
jecting the problem of double texts back to the very origins of the
LXX. Only in the case of Samucl—Kings is there particular com-
plexity since textual pluralism, as the texts from Qumran have shown,
affects even the Hebrew Vorlage.®

For the same reason, no duplicates of the LXX can be proposed
as witness for dating the Aramaic Targums. Furthermore, even the
targumisms and other midrashic phenomena present in the LXX as
a translation have to be used with extreme caution when dating tar-
gumic traditions, for it is very difficult to determine whether they
come from the translator’s first mecting with the text or are the
product of later revisions or reworkings.”

SeLecr BrstioGRAPHY

Bodine, W. R., The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments, Chico, Calif. 1980.

Bogaert, P.-M., “Relecture et refonte historicisante du livre de Daniel attestées par
la premiére version grecque (Papyrus 967)”. Hiudes sur le judaisme hellénistique, ed.
R. Kuntzmann and J. Schlosser, Paris 1984, 197-224.

i L. H., “UXX and Targum”. ZAW 66 (1954), 80-86.

. “The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel”. OTS 20 (1977), 22-40.

Busto Saiz, J. R., Hi doble texto griega de Tobit y su insercién en la fustoria de LXX.
Memoria de Licenciatura, Madrid, Complutensian Univ. 1975.
--, “El texto teodociénico de Daniel y la traduccién de Simaco”. Sefarad 40
(1980), 41-55.

Churgin, P., “Targum and LXX”. ASL 50 (1933-34), 41-65.

Delcor, M., “Un cas de traduction targumique de la Septante a propos de la statue
en or de Dan IIT”. Textus 7 (1969), 30-35.

Delekat, L., “Ein Septuagintatargum”. VT 8 (1958), 225-52.

Engel, H., Die Susanna-Erzihlung. Finleitung, Ubersetzung und Kommentar zum Sepluaginta-
Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung, Fribourg-Gottingen 1985.

% FM. Cross, “he History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in
the Judean Desert”, HTR 57 (1964), 281-99, and C. Dogniez, BS 154~56.

® D. W. Gooding, “On the Use of the LXX for Dating Midrashic Elements in
the Targums”, 77S 25 (1974), 1-11. Of the three examples from Exodus studied
by Gooding, only the second probably derives from the translators; the other two
are the result of later revisions.

104 THE ORIGINS OF THE SEPTUAGINT

Fernandez Marcos, N., “El texto Barberini de Habacuc III reconsiderado™. Sefarad
36 (1976), 3-36.

Goad, E. M. The Barberini Greek Version of Habbakuk Il”. V7 9 (1959), 11-30.

Gooding, D. W., “On the Use of the LXX for Dating Midrashic Elements in the
‘Targums”. JTS 25 (1974), 1-11.

“Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns”. Textus 7

(1969), 1-29.

“Two Possible Examples of Midrashic Interpretation in the Septuagint
Exodas”. Wort, Lied und Gotlesspruch 1, 39-49.

Gordon, R. P., “The Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash?”.
VT 25 (1975), 368-94.

Gray, J., “The Masoretic Text of the Book of Job, the Targum and the Septuagint
Version in the Light of the Qumran Targum (11 Qtargjob)”. )”. LAW 86 (1974),
331-50.

Grelot, P., “La Septante de Daniel IV et son substrat sémitique”. RB 81 (1974),
5-25.

Hamm, W., Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. I-2 nach dem Kilner Teil des
Papyrus 967, Bonn 1969.

, Der Sepiuaginia-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 3-4 nach dem Kélner Teil des Papyrus
967, Bonn 1977.

Hanhart, R., Text und Textgeschichte des 1 Esrabuches. MSU XU, Gottingen 1974, 17ff.

Text und Texigeschichte des Buches Tobit. MSU XVII, Gottingen 1984.

Holmes, S., Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts, Cambridge 1914,

Jeansonne, Ss P., The Old Greek Transtation of Daniel 7- 12, Washington, D.C. 1988.

Kahle, P., The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 1959.

; “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuchtextes”. TSK 88 (1915),
399-439 (= Opera Minora, Leiden 1956, 3~37).

Kaminka, A., “LXX und Targum 2u Proverbia”. HUCA 8-9 (1931-32), 169-91.

Katz, P., “Notes on the Septuagint TH: Coincidences between LXX and Tg° in
Genesis XV”. JTS 47 (1946), 166-68.

Koch, K., “Die Herkunft der proto-Theodotion-Ubersetzung des Danielbuches”. VT
23 (1973), 262-65.

Ludlum, J. H., “The Dual Greek Text of Judges in Codices A and B”. Diss. Yale
1957.

Montgomery, J. A., Daniel, ICC 1950.

Moore, G.'F., Judges in ICC 1949.

Pretzl, O., “LXX-Probleme im Buch der Richter”. Bib 7 (1926), 233-69 and 353-83.

Rabin, Ch., “Cultural Aspects of Bible Translation”. Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed.
M. Stone, Jerusalem 1976, 35-49.

Saenz-Badillos, A., “T'radicién griega y texto hebreo del Canto de Débora”. Sefarad
33 (1973), 245-59,

Schmitt, A., Stammi der sogenannte “O’”-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?, MSU
IX Gottingen 1966.

Schreiner, J., “Textformen und Urtext des Deboraliedes in der LAX”. Bib 42 (1961),
173-200.

, “Zum B-Text des griechischen Canticum deborae”. Bib 42 (1961), 333-58.

Schiipphaus, J., “Das Verhaltnis von LXX- und Theodotion-Text in den apokryphen
Zusdtzen zum Danielbuch”. Z4W 83 (1971), 49-72.

Soisalon-Soininen, I., Die Textformen der Sepluaginta-Ubersetzung des Richterbuches, Helsinki
1951.

, D., “Alexandrinian Analogical Word-Analysis and Septuagint Translation
Techniques”. Textus 8 (1973), 31-44.

Wright, B. G., No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text, Atlanta,
Ga. 1989.

Weis

THE DOUBLE TEXTS 105

Targumism

Aejmelaeus, A., “Septuaginta! Translation Techniques: A Solution to the Problem
of the Tabernacle Account”. Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognaie Writings, 1992, 381-402.

Barc, B., “Du temph la synagogue. Essai d’interprétation des premiers targu-
mismes de la Septante”. Selon les Septante, 1995, 11-26.

Bowker, J., The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge 1969.

Brown, “The Septuagint as a Source of the Greek-Loan-Words in the Targums”.
Bib 70 (1989), 194-216.

Diez Macho, A., El Tareum. Introduccién a tas traducciones aramaicas de ta Biblia, Barcelona
1972. Reprints in Madrid, CSIC 1979 and 1982.

Le Déaut, R., Jniroduction a la titterature Targumique, Rome 1966.
-—, “La Septante: un Targum?”. Mtudes sur le judaisme hellénistique, ed. R. Kutzmann
and J. Schlosser, Paris 1984, 147-95.

—--~~, “Un phénoméne spontané de lherméneutique juive ancienne, Je targu-
misme”. Bib 52 (1971), 505-25.

PART ‘THREE

THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

CHAPTER SEVEN

AQUILA AND HIS PREDECESSORS

In current research on the LXX, a dividing line cannot be drawn
between the new translations into Greck of the Bible exactly as they
are described in the ancient sources and successive revisions that the
Septuagintal text very soon underwent.’ The reason for the new
translations by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion is generally
accepted as being the adoption of the LXX by Christians and its
consequent rejection by the Jews. This appropriation would explain
the need for translations that would reflect the original Hebrew more
faithfully, a need sharpened by Jewish—Christian polemic concerning
the correct interpretation of the Scripture as is reflected, for exam-
ple in Justin’s Dialogue with Tryphon.? It would also contribute to the
gradual abandonment of the LXX by the Jews, the fixing of the
Hebrew canon and the Synod of Yamnia (c. 100 cE) which obvi-
ously excluded several biblical books written in Greek and trans-
mitted by the Alexandrian Bible. e
However, this explanation is no longer satisfactory since, on the
one hand, there are indications of the rejection of the LXX by the
Jews prior to the 2nd century CE, as we saw at the close of chap-
ter 3.° Furthermore, there are manuscript witnesses that come from
the Jews and are earlier than Christianity, the most surprising of
which is the Twelve Prophcts scroll from Nahal Hever, which exhibits
clear signs of correction of the Greek text to fit it to the Hebrew
text then current. Accordingly, the aim of conforming more to the
Hebrew text in these early revisions of the LXX which later would
lead to the calque-translation of Aquila, was carlicr than Jewish—
Christian polemic. Equally unsatisfactory is the explanation of Aquila’s
literalism as the result of applying halakhic exegesis of the Palestine
' See chapter 16 and E. Tov’s review of S. Jellicoe, SA4S, in RB 77 (1970), 84-91.
? For example, Aquila removes the word Xptotég from his translation, replacing
it with NAewuévoc, as can be seen in | Sam. 2:35; 2 Sam. 1:21; Ps. 2:2; 38:8; Is.
45:1 and Dan. 9:26. See D. Barthélemy, “L’Ancien Testament a mari 4 Alexandrie”,
TZ 21 (1965), 358-70, p. 362 n. 1h.
* See p. 46. As is made clear in the prologue to Sira, the warning miracles for
having approached the sacred text (Leller of Aristeas, 8§314—16) and account of the
changes brought in by King Ptolemy.

110 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

rabbis to the Greek Bible. Some scholars think that this tendency
had pedagogic roots and was directed to Greek-speaking Jews with
a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew so that they would be able to
understand the text of the Old Testament.? The more common opin-
ion propagated by Barthélemy, according to which Aquila made his
translation following strictly the hermeneutical principles of Rabbi
Aqiba, was never fully accepted and has recently been questioned
by Grabbe. A literal translation cannot depend on a particular form
of hermencutics. Grabbe holds that more research is necessary con-
cerning the reliability of the translations attributed to Aqiba and that
he was not the only rabbi to use the exegetical techniques attrib-
uted to him. Furthermore, the preposition ’ef is only translated as obv
when it is followed by the article, since in no rabbinic source is it
stated that Akibah gave ’et an inclusive meaning only when it was
followed by the article. All in all, Aquila’s translation techniques are
closer to modern literal translators than to the rabbinic exegetes of
antiquity.> The same line of thought is followed by A. Paul, for
whom Aquila’s literalness serves the ideology and polemic of a school.
It formed part of a wider programme of the restoration of Judaism
and of the sacred tongue precisely when Hadrian was changing
Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina. The answer to this desire for restor-
ing the sacred tonguc and the frontiers of Judaism was Aquila’s trans-
lation, a translation which takes apart the language of the LXX and
restores the meanings of the original, creating a kind of rabbinic
Bible in Greck, replacing the LXX already inherited by the Christians.®

From these preliminary observations I will now go on to consider
each of the Jewish translators who have transmitted the ancient tra-
dition to us, primarily for methodological reasons. Besides, although
their historical personality has to some extent been blurred by recent
discoveries, the figures of Aquila and Symmachus are clearly defined
as independent translators, not mere revisers.’

* ‘This is the opinion of G. Vermes in his review of Les Denanciers d’Aquila pub-
lished in JSS 11 (1966), 264. In the time of Origen it was used by Jews who did
not understand Hebrew: ptAotudtepov nemotevpévos napé ‘lovdaiois...@ wdArota

eimBacw ot Gyvoodvtes Thy “EBpatwv bidAeKtov ypticba1, do n&vtwv paAAV émute-

tevypévo (‘[Aquila], the most reliable and the one with the highe:
the Jews, the one those who do not know Hebrew tend to use
structed of all’), Ep. ad Afr., 2.

5 L. L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exege: 527-36,

* See L. L. Grabbe, “The ‘franslation Technique of the’ Greek Minor Versions”,
505-56, pp. 516-17.

esteem among
s the best con-

AQUILA AND HIS PREDECESSORS ili
a) Ancient Witnesses

Aquila’s name must have been common in antiquity since it is attested
in the apostolic age.* This translator was a gentile by birth and came
from Sinope, a Roman colony in Pontus. Epiphanius provides more
details about his life.° He lived during the reign of the emperor Hadrian
(117-338) to whom he was related (he was probably his brother-in-
law: nevOeptinc, The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, 117; nevOepdc
according to Pseudo-Athanasius in the Chronicon Pascale).'° Hadrian
commissioned him to supervise the building of Aelia Capitolina on the
esplanade of Jerusalem and there he was converted to Christianity
under the influence of those returning from Pella. However, he was
excommunicated since he refused to give up astrology. Out of resent-
ment he underwent circumcision, devoting himself to learning Hebrew
in order to translate the Bible into Greek with the aim of displac-
ing the LXX which at the time represented Christian interpretation.

Basically the same story is repeated in the Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae,
77, by Pseudo-Athanasius and in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila
by Epiphanius. In spite of the latter’s polemical and partisan nature,
more than one detail of the story is suspect. Jerome and Origen on
the other hand give us a much more positive judgement of the trans-
lator Aquila, recognising his mastery as a translator and his faith-
fulness to the Hebrew text.'! é

As for rabbinic tradition, it agrees with Christian tradition in
describing Aquila as a proselyte, ha-gér.'? After his conversion to
Judaism they add that he was a disciple of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi

® Acts 18:2 lovdaiov évopatt ’AxbAav, Moveixdy t@ yéver (“a Jew called Aquila,
a native of Pontus”).

* Epiphanius, De Mens. et Ponderity AMT.

© This may be explained by a passage by Theodoret of Cyrus, in the fourth
question on the book of Judges: revOepdv 5é abtdv KéKAnkev Gg tig yoetiig ddedoov.
Kal yap viv moAAol tobs to1obdtousg mevOepisag KaAodor (“However he is called
brother-in-law as the bride’s brother and now many call those or such people pentheri-
das”); see N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Saenz-Badillos, ‘Theadoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones
in Octateuchum, Editio Critica, Madrid 1979, 290, 16-18.

"’ See Origen, Ep. ad Afr. 3; Jerome, Praef. in Job, and especially in Hp. ad Marcellam,
where he slates: “et -ul amicae menti fatear- quae ad nostram fidem roborandam
plura reperio”. And in the Commentary on Isaiah 49:5 he calls him “eruditissimus
linguae gra In fact, in Aquila’s translations that special anti-Chrisuan ko-
kovpyia with which Theodoretus branded him is not noticeable, but these versions
are due to a peculiar translation technique as has been shown by F. Field, Ongenis
HHexaplorum quae supersunt, XIX-XX, analysing seven examples of debated conflicting
passages.

2 Jerusalem Talmud, Meg. 1,1; Riddush. 1,1.

112 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

Joshua, or according to other witnesses, of Rabbi Akiba. The simi-
larity of his name with the name of the author of Targum Ongelos,
who translated the Pentateuch into Aramaic, has caused consider-
able confusion. In the Babylonian Talmud and in the Tosephta, the
same or similar incidents are ascribed to Onqelos as are attributed
to Aquila in the Jerusalem Talmud and the Palestinian midrashim.
Today, the tendency is to ascribe the Talmud passages to Aquila,
concluding that when his name was changed to Ongelos in the
Babylonian sources, the anonymous Aramaic translation of the
Pentateuch was attributed to Ongelos the proselyte.'*

The information from Epiphanius, who put his zenith in the twelfth
year of Hadrian (= 129/30)," is in agreement with his being a dis-
ciple of Akiba who taught from 95 to 135. Taking into account his
learning of Hebrew as an adult and the necessary familiarity with
methods of rabbinic exegesis, it is unlikely that he finished his work
before 140. This date also fits the remark by Irenaeus who wrote
his book Adv. Haereses c. 190, where he describes Aquila’s translation
as comparatively recent.'®

The Jerusalem Talmud informs us of the enthusiastic welcome
that the Jews gave his translation.'® His teachers congratulated him
with the words of Ps, 45:3: yafpafita mubené ’adam = “You are the most
handsome of all men.” Preference for Aquila’s translation continued
in Jewish circles over the centuries that followed.'? And even in the
time of Justinian, use of this version was permitted in synagogues,
as well as the Septuaginta.'*

This is an indication that its destiny was linked with that of the
Greek language in the East and that it only became irrelevant as a

'L. J. Rabinowitz, “Onkelos and Aquila”, 1405

'* Epiphanius, De Mens. et Ponderibus, 13:... #a¢ ’AxbAa. to Eppevevtod, Hyouv
€og Sabdexdtov etovg *ASpiovod (“until the translator Aquila, i.c, until the twelfth
year of Hadrian”).

‘5 Trenaeus, Adv. Haereses II, 21,1: oby as evil goow tév viv peBeppnvede_
ToAMdvt@V THY ypophv... &> Oeodotiov... & "Epcos Kai “AcdAacs 6 TovtiKds,
ép@dtepor “lovdaior xpoonAvtor (“Not as some of those who have dared to trans-

late Scripture now state... for example Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila from
Pontus, both Jewish proselytes”).
© Meg. 1,9.

7 See Jerome, in his Gommentary on Ez. 3:5, and Augustine, De Civitate Dei 15,
23.

18 Justinian, Novella 146: “at vero ii qui Graeca lingua legunt LXX interpretum
utentur translatione... verum... licentiam concedimus atiam Aquilae versione
utendi”, The whole document is translated by P. Kable in The Cairo Geniza, Oxford
1959, 315-17.

AQUILA AND HIS PREDECESSORS 113

result of the Arab invasion and the disappearance of Greek as lin-
gua franca in the Near East.

b) The Sources of this Version

The complete translation by Aquila was lost, and until 1897 all that
was known of his text were a few quotations preserved in the com-
mentaries by the Fathers, more rarely in Talmudic literature and
some readings from the Hexapla, usually copied in the margins of
manuscripts which transmitted the LXX. These fragments are col-
lected in the work by Field.

However, already in 1896 Klostermann announced the discovery
by Cardinal Mercati of a palimpsest, 0.39 of the Ambrosian Library
of Milan, which contains large fragments of a Hexapla of Psalms,
and published a specimen of it.”

In 1897, Burkitt published manuscript fragments of the actual
translation by Aquila which he discovered among the heaps of mate-
rial from the Cairo Genizah.*' They belonged to a badly preserved
copy of a version by Aquila of readings in the synagogue. It con-
tains 1 Kgs 20:7-17 and 2 Kgs 23:11-27 (Hebrew numbering). The
fragments come from Jewish circles between 4th and 6th centu-
ries CE, and were still in the possession of Jews in the 11th century
when they were made into a palimpsest. As they are continuous frag-
ments they help to improve our knowledge of Aquila’s syntax. The
Tetragrammaion is written in palaeo-Hebrew, which confirms Origen’s
statement in his commentary on Ps. 2:2: Kat év toig axpiBeotépors
5é tOv dvrrypaov EBpatots Yapaxti ptt Keitar 6 Svona, EBpaikoits bé od
toic viv GAAK toi Gpxatotatois (“and in the most faithful manuscripts,
the name is in Hebrew characters, not those of today but very ancient
characters”).

In 1900, among the chests of the Cairo Genizah, C. Taylor found
fragments of Pss 90:17 to 103:17 (Hebrew numbering) and a Hexa-
plaric fragment of Ps. 22 with only the columns of Aquila, Symma-
chus and the LXX preserved.” ‘That same year, Grenfell and Hunt

'8 FL Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. And later in the critical apparatus
of the Cambridge and Géttingen editions.

” E. Klostermann, “Die Mailinder Fragmente der Hexapla”, ZAW 16 (1896),
334-37,

2 FG. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings.

2 F.C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings. Foreword by C. Taylor, V-VII.

°C. Taylor, Hebrew~Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, Cambridge 1900.

114 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

published a papyrus from the second half of the 3rd century which
contains a letter from an Egyptian Christian from Rome to his fel-
low countrymen in Egypt. In this document J. R. Harris identified
a fragment of Aquila containing Gen. 1:1-5.

In 1915, Liitkemann and Rahlfs increased the known matcrial
from Aquila for Isaiah 1-6 by publishing the Hexaplaric notes of
ms. 710.” If the edition of the commentary on Isaiah by Theodoret
of Cyr contributed little new Hexaplaric material,” the same did not
apply to the commentary on Isaiah by Eusebius of Caesarea dis-
covered by Méhle in 1930, which increased the Hexaplaric mate-
rial of that prophet by about 20%.”

In 1946, P. Katz reclaimed for Aquila a quotation of Gen. 17:1
which occurs in a discordant text of Philo (De Gigantibus, 63).** Finally,
in 1958 the fragments of Psalms 17-18 discovered by Mercati were
published for the first time, followed in 1965, by the volume of
Observations.” The other manuscripts with indirectly transmitted
Hexaplaric readings, Canon. graecus 62 and Vat. Gr. 752, have been
edited and studied by A. Schenker,” who promises to publish soon
the readings from O#. Gr. 398.°!

In ms. Hab e 43 f 51 of the Bodleian in Oxford, which contains
the Hebrew text of Prov. 17:16~19:3, Riiger discovered imterlinear

4B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Amherst Papyri F, London 1900. New read-
ing, translation and commentary in A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, Tiibingen 1923,
172-79.

*% T, Litkemann and A. Rahlfs, Hexaplarische Randnoten zu Isaias I-16 aus einer
Sinai-Handschrifi herausgegeben. MSU VI, Berlin 1915 [Sinai Cod. Gr 5 (Raklfs 710) 10th
cent].

2 A. Mohle, Theodoret von Kyros Kommentar zu Jesaia. MSU V, Berlin 1932.

27 A, Mahle, Hin neuer Fund zahlreicher Sticke aus Jesaia-Ubersetzungen des Akylas,
Symmachos und Theodotion, ‘he material from these commentaries is already included
in the hexaplar apparatus of the critical edition of Isaiah by J. Ziegler, Gottingen
¢ manuscript discovered by Méhle with the Commentary on Isaiah is in
session of the Sepluaginta-Untermehmen of Gottingen and the critical edition is
also by Ziegler, Eusebius Werke IX. Der Fesajakommentar, Berlin 1975.

* P. Katz, “A Fresh Fragment Recovered from Philo”, 77S 47 (1946), 3{-33.The
text in question is: mepindter eig xpdowndv pov Koi ylvou téeiog. According to
Katz, because of the lexicon and the translation techniques, it belongs to Aquila
and should be included in the Hexaplar apparatus. As is known, Philo’s ‘anom-
alous’ is strongly influenced by Aquila, see P, Katz, Philo’s Bible, Cambridge 1950,
116ff.

® G. Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae 11, Rome 1958; 1 Osservaziont, Rome 1965.

® A. Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstiicke. Die hexaplarischen Psatmenfragmente der
Handschrifien Vaticanus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62, Fribourg-Géttingen 1975.

“A. Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstiicke, VU.

AQUILA AND HIS PREDECESSORS 115

Greek glosses to the Hebrew text, in majuscule, which probably came
from a reader who knew the Greek according to Aquila’s transla-
tion. As an integral part of the finds from the Cairo Genizah, these
glosses must be placed alongside the fragments of Aquila published
by Burkitt and Taylor.” And into Aquila’s translation have to be
inserted at least several glosses on Malachi and Job from a fragment
from the Cairo Genizah and published by de Lange.

The Syro-Hexaplaric version, with its frequent glosses by “the
three”, has been another source used by Field in collecting Hexaplaric
readings besides those from the margins of Greek mss and the quo-
tations in the Fathers. And now, W. Baars, by publishing in 1968
new fragments of the Syro-Hexapla, has provided us with a list of
Hexaplaric, readings some of which are completely new.** The recov-
ery of new material from direct or indirect sources is not exhausted
as shown by the new Hexaplaric readings from a catenary manu-
script of Psalm 118.°

c) Characteristics

Aquila’s translation techniques, his fidelity to the Hebrew text, and
his Semitised syntax that is peculiar to a calque language, which we
know of from ancient sources, have been confirmed as more and
more continuous texts of that translator have been discovered. Study
of them was taken up by Field®* and especially by Reider,” and
more recently by Barthélemy in connection with the exegetical meth-
ods of Palestinian rabbis, and by K. Hyvarinen.* Let us look at
some of his most significant characteristics:

® See H. P. Riiger, “Vier Aquila~Glossen in einem hebrdaischen Proverbien-
Fragment aus der Kairo-Geniza”, ZNW 50, 3-4 (1959), 275-77.

33 N_R. M. de Lange, “Some New Fragments of Aquila on Malachi and Job?”,
VT 30 (1980), 291-95.

3% W. Baars, New Syro-Hexaplaric Texis: Edited Commented upon Compared with the
Septuagint, Leiden 1968, especially pp. 144-45.

“ G, Dorival, “L'apport des chaines exégétiques grecques 4 une réedition des
Hexapies d’Origéne (A propos du psaume 118)”, RAT 4 (1974), 45-74 especially
pp. 70-74.

% F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XXI-XXIV.

% J. Reider, Prolegomena io a Greek-Hebrew.

% DP, Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, especially pp. 81-87, and K. Hyvarinen,
Die Ubersetzung von Aquila, Uppsala 1977.

116 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

I. Aquila expresses the same Hebrew words with the same Greek
words and in the same order, even though the meaning in the target
language is obscured: Gen. 18:12 Sarah laughed b‘qirbah, LXX év
gout, o év éykét@ ondefig. 1 Samuel 13:21 ha-p’sird pin, } npooBdanorg
otéuata (sic!). However, it should be specified that several times
Aquila did not follow a consistent system of stereotyped translation.”

2. He translates Hebrew words with an eye on ctymology, even
though this procedure produces semantic shifts in Greek that are
difficult to fit into the context: Ps. 22:13 Aitt‘riiné, a Siedqpnottoavtd
pe. He coins this neologism from $iéSnye, a translation of keler =
“crown”. The LXX instead translates mepiécyov Le.

3. He aims to be faithful to the syllables and even to the letters
of the original. He reproduces the Hebrew locative -@ by -e and
the particle ’et (which marks the accusative) by obv: Gen. 12:9 ha-
neg’bbd, o vorovie; Ex. 28:26 baitah, a’ oixdvde; Gen. 1:1 7a ha-
Samayim we et ha ares 0 odv tv odpavdy Koi odv thy yijv. Similarly,
he translates the Hebrew personal pronoun *dnoki by éya: we’anokt
allt, a «ai éym eipr éxvpievoa, Jer. 38(31):32.

4. Sometimes he resorts to a kind of manncrism attested in rab-
binic hermeneutics which consists in breaking up a Hebrew root
comprising several letters and translating it with two Greek words:
Ex, 32:25 i'Simsé = “into an object of malignant joy’ (LXX éxizapuc),
a’ etc dvona Pbrov (ic. he reads [‘sem sed). This is possible because
Aquila shares the ancient view about Hebrew roots which is igno-
rant of the principle of triliteralism, accepted for the first time by
the Hebrew grammarian J. Hayyug in the 11th century ce. As a
result, in translation he frequently confuses two similar roots.

5. He also resorts to the device of inserting Hebrew words with
Greck colouring, making use of the homophony. In Dt. 11:30, Aquila
translates ’één = ‘holm oak’ as adAdv, which in Greek really means
‘hollow, ditch, gully’. The result is that in Aquila, Greek words some-
times acquire completely different meanings to those in general use
and the dictionaries are used as mere indicators of the Hebrew word
to those trying to translate.”

6. Compound particles are reproduced just as they are, so that
no Hebrew element is lost in Greek. For example, Gen. 2:18 k‘negdé,
a” &¢ Katévat adtod (against LXX Kor’ adtév).

* See J. Barr, The Typology of Literatism, 312.
© As noted by J. Barr in his review of Index to Aquila, JSS 12 (1967), 303.

AQUILA AND HIS PREDECESSORS 117

7. In continuous fragments that have been preserved, the Tetra-
grammaton is written in palaeo-Hebrew characters. Moving from the
square script, the waw and the yod were drawn almost in the same
way (77"). This similarity gave rise to the curious transcription TWH
in Greek by copyists who no longer understood what it meant.*!
However, within the Greek text it was pronounced «bptog. Similarly,
Aquila uses special translations for the divine names, with ixavéc for
Sadday and ioxvpdc for °E/, following the procedure of translating
according to etymology.”

8. For the verbs he often used formations in -iGew and -odv, and
for nouns the suffixes -udc, -tn¢, -oig and -po.

9. He is more consistent than the LXX in retaining the aspects
and functions of the various Hebrew conjugations. The piel and hiphil
are chiefly expressed by verbs in -obv, -dGewv, -ifew. When the
Hebrew verb is intransitive, it is usually translated by the Greek verb
in the passive, thus ’or for pwtiteoOou. In this case the piel and hiphil
of the same verb are translated by the Greek active; for example
h@ ir for pwtiCew. As is evident he is more demanding than the LXX
in the nuances of Hebrew voices.

10. In exegesis his literalist tendency set up a barnier to the alle-
gorical methods of interpretation that had culminated in Philo and
the Alexandrian School. The literalism is particularly evident in the
lexicon, although it should be stressed that Aquila is a master in his
choice of words and has full command of Greek. However, in syn-
tax Aquila’s supposed literalism needs to be more nuanced since he
allowed himself a degree of freedom in adapting the Greek language
system reasonably well.

11. To a very large extent the Hebrew text used by the transla-
tor is proved to be the same as the lextus receplus, at least in respect
of the consonantal text. However, there are passages where the trans-
lation must suppose a different Vorlage from the Masorctic text as an
indication that the standardisation of the Hebrew text supposed by
the Synod of Yamnia (¢. 100 cx) did not take effect immediately or
in a radical way,* but instead was more the expression of an ideal
to be aimed for.

An index of Aquila has for years been one of the most pressing

“ See, for example, Ps. 21(22):20-28.

® See K. Hyvarinen, Die Ubersetzung von Aquila, 3638.

“ See K, Hyvarinen, Die Ubersetzung von Aquila, 43-86 and 111-12.
“ J. Reider, Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebraw, 2926.

118 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

projects for students of the LXX. Back in 1913, Reider announced
that in Dropsie College they were working on indexes of the three
Jewish translators which were to appear as a supplementary volume
to the concordance of Hatch — Redpath. In the same place he put
forward some methodological proposals that had to be taken into
account in compiling them, such as the separation of words exclu-
sive to each of “the three” from words they had in common; sepa-
rating witnesses from Greek sources from those obtained by the
retranslation of secondary versions, etc."* In a joint publication, Katz
and Ziegler were to repeat their wishes for the compilation of indexes
to Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion as soon as possible, and they
also specify a scries of preliminary criteria to be followed.” Finally,
in 1966, we had the satisfaction of seeing the appearance of the first
of them, Aquila, on which Reider worked, now completed and revised
by N. Turner.“ Unfortunately, he only carried out part of his task,
for there are so many limitations which reviews of the book have
pointed out that it cannot be used without a rigorous check on the
data in the actual sources.” Another defect of this work, which
requires revision and correction, is that it was only possible to be
exhaustive in those books in which the critical edition with a sound
Hexaplaric apparatus have appeared in the editio magna of Gottingen.
From this point of view, the publication of the Index could be con-
ceived as premature except that it is necessary to combine the study
of lexicon and grammar with the publication of editions, given the
extremely slow progress of this type of undertaking.

*® J. Reider, Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebrew, 321 in a footnote

6 J. Reider, Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebrew, 3078.

” P. Katz and J. Ziegler, “Ein Aquila-Index in Vorbereitung”.

© J. Reider and N. ‘Turmer, An Index to Aquila Greek—Hebrew, Hebreww—Greek, Latin~ Hebrew
with the Syriac and Armenian Evidence, VS 12 (1966).

*” J. Barr describes the Latin~Hebrew Index as “a source of endless confusion”
in JSS 12 (1967), 296-304, p. 302. See also, E. Tov in “Some Corrections to
Reider — Turner’s Index to Aquila”, and especially R. Hanhart, who in TRe 64
(1968), 394, undoubtedly makes the harshest judgement against the Index, After sug-
gesting a new revision to correct all the mistakes, checking the passages of the book
in Field, Hatch - Redpath and the other Hexaplaric material which appeared later
than these publications, he closes with the following words: “Und hier muss man,
damit nicht die kommenden Beitrage zur Septuaginta-Forschung mit einer Fiille an
falschen oder ungenauen Zitaten tiberschwemmt werden, jeden Septuaginta-Forscher
davor warnen, dieses Buch zu benutzen, ohne eine jede seiner Angaben an den
ihm zugrunde liegenden Quellen nachgeprifi zu haben.” Ziegler followed Hanhart’s
advice in his edition of the book of Job and discovers 114 false attributions to
Aquila in Turner’s Index for the book of Job alone, see J. Ziegler, Beitrdge zum
griechischen ob, 53°66.

AQUILA AND HIS PREDECESSORS 119
d) Current Research and Future Prospects

Undoubtedly the most important contribution to the the study of
“the three” in the last few years is the work by Barthélemy men-
tioned above. From the fragments of the Twelve Prophets discov-
ered in Nahal Hever he succeeded in identifying a recension of the
LXX that brings the original Greek text close to the Hebrew text
at that time and puts into practice the exegetical techniques of
Palestinian rabbis. Barthélemy calls this recension “R” or xaiye, and
finds traces of it in various books of the LXX into which it had
penetrated in an uneven fashion at one of the stages of the manu-
script transmission. Within this movement the work of Aquila does
not yet appear as completely new and original in the 2nd century
but as the perfecting and culmination of this process begun by the
kaiye group in the Ist century cE in the circles of Rabbi Hillel.
Barthélemy notes a series of translation techniques of the xatye group
perfected by Aquila.®' The latter, under the aegis of Rabbi Akiba,
improved the work of the xaiye group in such a way that it suc-
ceeded in eclipsing its predecessors in the Jewish world.

Within this new perspective, opened up by Barthélemy’s mono-
graph, it remains for the future to clarify how in this process of the
revision of the LXX which culminated in the version by Aquila,
ancient information and the testimony of manuscripts about a dou-
ble edition of this version are to be reinterpreted. Can they be
understood as the two different stages revealed in this process, thé
stages of the xatye and of the definitive translation by Aquila? In
agreement with the characteristics set out above are Field’s words
about the style of these two editions: “primam liberiorem in qua
sensum potius quam singulas voces apte reddere studebat; alteram
vero quae Kat’ &kptBerev nominabatur”.** Something similar was to
happen with Aquila, who perfected the method of the Kkatye group,
taking its literalism to the extreme. However, to explain this pomt
and to prove that they are not simply marginal corrections to the
single edition, it will be necessary first to re-examine the reliability
of those attributions and the guarantee of the witnesses. It is sur-
prising that the passages where Jerome mentions two editions of

D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquia.

5! 2). Barthélemy, Les Dewanciers d’Aquila, 81-88.

® EF, Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XXV—-XXVIL.

53°F, Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XXXV, following Jerome.

120 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

Aquila are all from Jeremiah, Ezekiel and a quotation from Daniel.
However, neither in his commentaries on Isaiah, the Twelve Prophets
or Psalms nor in his many letters in which he alludes to Aquila,
does he again mention this double edition. Even so, the list — fairly
lengthy ~ of double readings compiled by Field is more reliable;
some are attested by more than one route, two manuscripts or a
Greek manuscript and the Syro-Hexapla and occur in a greater num-
ber of books. Within this process, the attribution to Aquila of the
text of Qoheleth printed in current editions as from the LXOX still
needs to be clarified, and likewise the affiliation to the xatye group
of the Septuagintal text of Song, Lamentations and Ruth.” And
should this hypothesis be confirmed, it must be explained how the
fragments attributed to Aquila in these books were inserted within
the revisions.

Since each book of the LXX presents its own problems, the pos-
sibility cannot be ruled out that the tendency to a greater literalness
may have influenced the Alexandrian version of some hagiographers.

The improvements to the index to Aquila suggested by the reviews
cited above are as follows:

1. A revision is urgently needed of the published index to correct
the large number of mistakes that have slipped in at various stages
of the work.

2. It is necessary to complete this in the light of the new mate-
rial that is gradually being published, much of it already included in
the critical editions of Gottingen.

In the field of Aquila’s translation techniques and syntax, a new
monograph is required that takes recent material (especially those

3 F. Field, Origents Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XXVI-XXVII. The books included
are Ex., Lev., Num., Kgs, Pss, Is., Jer., Ez., Jon., and Mic.

8 1D, Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 32~34. Recently for the LXX of Qoheleth,
Hyvarinen. has reached the conclusion that it is neither the ancient LXX nor Aquila’s
version, but instead a mixed text, “eine von den rabbinen angeregten Rezensionen
ist, die auch die merkwiirdige Ubersetzung der nota accusativi aufweist, ohne dass sie
deswegen als cine Aquila-Version betrachtet werden konnte. Sie ist unter Leitung
von r. Akiba, méglicherwersc in der 70er Jahren iibersetazt und spater vielleicht von
Aquila revidiert worden,” see K. Hyvarinen, Die Ubersetzung von Aquila, 88-99,
p. 99. According to Jarick there is no basis for denying Aquila as the author of the
readings that the manuscripts attribute to him in Qoheleth, whereas there are good
reasons in support of those attributions? In connection with the problem of a dou-
ble edition of Aquila in Qoheleth, it cannot be decided for certain whether Qoheleth-
LXX is the first edition of Aquila and Qoheleth-Aquila the second, sce J. Jarick,
“Aquila’s Qohelet”, p. 139.

AQUILA AND HIS PREDECESSORS 121

fragments that preserve a continuous text such as the ones discov-
ered by Mercati for the Psalms) into account. Above all, there is a
need for a systematic study of all the minor versions, in the light of
the various types of ancient Jewish hermeneutics, that avoids link-
ing a particular translation to a specific character of ancient Jewish
literature for no reason.”

And finally, there is a need to study Aquila’s influence on Jewish
versions into Mediaeval and Modern Greck, especially the Graeco-
Venetus and the interlinear version of the book of Jonah, which took
literalism to the extreme of making the Greek words keep the same
gender they had in the original Hebrew. However, we shall discuss
this in more detail in chapter 11.

With the Arabic invasion, use of Aquila by the Jews in the East is
no longer attested, when Greek ceased to be fingua franca in the whole
Near East. However, it always remained as an achievement and an
ideal in Jewish thought because of its faithful reproduction of the
sacred language; it survived in the Greek loanwords in post-biblical
Hebrew and in new attempts at Jewish translations into Byzantine
Greek and Modern Greck in the mediaeval and modern diaspora.

SeLecT BmiioGRAPHy
Barr, J., The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. MSU XV, Gottingen
1979.

Barthélemy, D., Les Devaneiers d’Aquila, VTS 10 (1963).

Burkitt, I. C., Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila,
Cambridge 1897 = New York 1969, XVIL-XXIL.

Busto Saiz, J. R., “El léxico peculiar del traductor Aquila”. Emerita 48 (1980), 31--41.

Daniel, S., “Minor Greek Versions”. Excyclopaedia Judaica 4, Jerusalem 1971, 955-56.

Declerck, J., “Le AtdAoyog xpos "Iovdaiovg du codex Athonensis Vatopedinus”. Byz 82
(1989), 118-121.

Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1875, Prolegomena, XVI-XXXVII.

Gil Ulecia, A., “Aquila”. EneBibl I (1963), 621-24.

Grabbe, L. L., “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”. 77S 33 (1982), 527-36,

—, “The ‘Translation ‘Technique of the Greek Minor Versions: Translations

or Revisions?”. Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 1992, 505

Greenspoon, L., “Aquila’s Version”. ABD 6 (1992), 320-21.

Hyvarinen, K., Die Ubersetzung von Aguila, Uppsala 1977.

Jarick, J., “Aquila’s Koheleth”. Textus 15 (1990), 131-39.

Jellicoe, S., “Aquila and his Version”. JOR 59 (1968-69), 326~32.

: » SMS, 76-83.

Katz, P., and J. Ziegler, “Ein Aquila-Index in Vorbereitung”. V7 8 (1958), 264-85.

6 See L. L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”, p. 536.

122 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

B., “Ein iibersehenes Fragment Aquila’s in Jr 38 (31), 22b?”. Bib 66

5}, 580-81.

Lange N. R. M. de, “Some New Fragments of Aquila on Malachi and Job?”, V7”
30 (1980), 291-94,

Liebreich, L. J., “Silverstone’s Aquila and Onkelos”. JOR ns 27 (1936-37), 287-91.

Mohle, A., “Ein neuer Fund zahlreicher Stiicke aus Jesaia- Ubersetzungen des Akyl:
Symmachos und Theodotion”. Probe eines neuen “Field”. ZAW] NF 11 (1934),
176-83.

Paul, A. “La Bible grecque d’Aquila et Pidéologic du judaisme ancien”, ANRW II,
20, 1 (1987), 221-85.

Rabinowitz, L. J., “Onkelos and Aquila”. Encyclopaedia Judaica 12, Jerusalem 1971,
1405--406,

Rahifs, A., “Uber Theodotion-Lesarten im Neuen Testament und Aquila-Lesarten
bei Justin”. ZNW 20 (1921), 182-99,

Reider, J., Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebrew and Hebrew—Greek Index to Aquila, Philadelphia
1916 = JFQK ns (1913), 321-56, 577-620; 7 (1916), 287-366.

, and N. ‘Turner, An Jndex to Aquila Greek~ Hebrew, Hebrew~Greek, Latin Hebrew
with the Syriac and Armenian Evidence, VTS 12 (1966), (and the review of this
work by J. Barr in JSS 12 [1967], 303, and by R. Hanhart in TRev 64, 65
[1968], 391-94).

Silverstone, A. E., Aquila and Onkelos, Manchester 1931.

Soisalon-Soininen, I., “Einige Merkmale der Ubersetzungsweise von Aquila”. Worl,
Lied und Gottesspruch, 1972, 1, 177-84.

Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914.

Tov, E., “Some Corrections to Reider — Turner’s Index to Aquila”. Textus 8 (1973),
164-74.

Ziegler, J., Bettrdge zum griechischen lob, Géttingen 1985, 53-66 and 110-12.

CHAPTER EIGHT

SYMMACHUS THE TRANSLATOR

a) Ancient Witnesses

As is the case for so many persons in antiquity, we know very lit-
tle with certainty about Symmachus and the circumstances and char-
acteristics of his work. Unlike Aquila and Theodotion, no specialist
has identificd him as the author of an Aramaic Targum. All the
same, in 1862 Geiger had already connected him with Sumkos ben
Yosef of the Talmud, a disciple of Rabbi Meir, who flourished
towards the end of the 2nd century ce and apparently knew Greek.'
Recently, D. Barthélemy again defended this identification, based
upon agreements between the haggadé by Rabbi Meir and the one
by Symmachus.*

From his silence it has been deduced that Irenaeus possibly did
not know him. In that case, he seems to have flourished after 200
ce. However, Origen’s first commentaries of ¢. 230 cE already men-
tion him. In any event, it is extremely difficult to determine the
chronology of this translator, as is shown by Mercati’s words at the
close of his massive study on the topic.? This is compounded by
the new problem raised by possible Symmachian readings before
the Common Era discovered recently’ and the early revisions of the
LXX to be analysed at the end of this chapter.

A. Geiger, “Symmachus der Ubersetzer der Bibel”.

* D. Barthélemy, “Qui est Symmache?”, 460. Barthélemy discovers five traits
common to the Greek translator and to Sumkos ben Yosef: (1) a lively and origi-
nal intellect; (2) a close relationship with Rabbi Meir; (3) a desire to be fre
against literalist exegesis; (4) a very muted acceptance by contemporary Judaism;
(5) ill repute concerning his Jewish and possibly Samaritan origin.

3G. Mercati, L’eta di Simmaco Vinterprete.

* §, Jellicoe, SMS 96: “The older view, as expressed by Swete, which would place
the denminus ad quem prior to c. Av 230 on the ground that Origen’s earliest com-
mentaries which were written about that time reflect a knowledge of Symmacht
, is no longer valid, since recent discoveries have shown that ‘Symmachian’
readings antedate the Christian era.” And on pp. 94~95: “Like Aquila and ‘Theodotion
he presents the modern student of the LXX with the problem which has already
received mention, the appearance of characteristic readings before his time.” We
would all like to know to which discoveries Jellicoe is referring, especially as it is

124 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

Symmachus is mentioned in Christian tradition by Epiphanius,
Eusebius, Jerome and Palladius. Of course, the information given by
these authors does not always agrec, the versions by Epiphanius and
Eusebius being the most contradictory. According to Epiphanius he
is a Samaritan despised by his people, who undergoes circumcision
again; he lived in the time of the emperor Severus.? However, for
Eusebius and Jerome he is an Ebionite whose memories circulated
in their lifetimes. And Euscbius added that Origen received them
together with interpretations of Scripture by Symmachus from a cer-
tain Juliana who in turn had received them from Symmachus him-
self Finally, Palladius remembers the two years that Origen remained

a matter of such importance. At the close of the chapter we will see what indica-
tions actually exist of these Symmachian readings prior to the historical Symmachus.

5 Epiphanius, De Mens. et Ponderibus, 16: év toi tod Levfpov xpdvoig Edppayds
tug Lapapeitns, tOv map’ adtoig copav pi tynPeig dad tod oixeiov LOvovg...
mpoondvtever Kal meprtéuveton Sevtépav meprtopyy... Odtog toivoy 6 Lbpuayos
mpdg Sraotpopiy tOv naps Lapapettats EpynverOv Epunvetoug thy tpitny &sSaKev
éppnvetev (“In the time of Severus, a certain Symmachus, a Samaritan and one of
their wise men, disgraced by his own people... becomes a prosclyte and is cir-
cumcised with a second circumcision... So this Symmachus, distorting the Scriptures
of the Samaritans by translating them, produced the third translation”).

® Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. VI, 17: tév ye why éppnvevtOv adt@v 8) tobtav iotéov
"EBiwvariov tov Loppaxov yeyovévor... Kai dropvqjpata Sz tod Lupdcyov eig Er
viv oépetat, év otc doxel mpdg td Kat MatOaiov dnotewopevoc edayyédiov, thy
Sednhopévyv aipeow xparbverv. tadta 52 6 ‘Qpryévng peta Kat GAAov eic ths
ypapas Epunverav tod Loppéyou onuaiver nape “lovAtaviis tivos eiAnpévan, Hv Kat
gow nap” adtod Supudyov ths Biprove S:0déEao8o1 (“And from these same inter-
preters it is important to know that Symmachus was an Ebionite and up to now
some reports about Symmachus are circulating in which, it seems, by arguing against
the gospel of Matthew he strengthens the heresy mentioned. And Origen explains
that he received these reports together with other Symmachian interpretations of
Scripture from a certain Juliana, who -- she says — received the books from Symmachus
himself”). And Jerome, De vir. ill., 54: “Vheodotionis Hebionaei et Symmachi eius-
dem dogmatis.” The passage from Eusebius, particularly the clause év oi¢ Soxet
mpdg to Kat MarBatov dnrotewédpevoc edoyyédiov, has occasioned some debate
depending on whether éxoteivecBar mpd ttva is understood to mean “to dedicate
oneself to” or with the nuance of opposition, “to start hurling insults against”. It
seem that Jerome did not understand the expression when he translates, “qui in.
evangelium quoque xoté& Mar@aiov scripsit commentarios” (De vir. ill, 54), For
Harnack instead, the translation of this passage runs as follows: “Er befestigt dic
Haresie der Ebioniten, indem er sich an das Matth.-Ev. wendet (d. h. es polemisch
herbeizicht)”, see A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius 1,
1 Berlin 1893, 210, stating that Symmachus wrote an Ebionite commentary on the
gospel of Matthew. The same opinion is held by H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Ge-
Schichte des Judenchristentums, 34: “Sie diirfic identisch sein mit dem ebionitischen
Matthauskommentar, den uns Euseb VI, 17 bezeugt hat.” Schoeps translates like
Harnack and according to him there are two interpretations: a) “dass er das Mt.Ev.
polemisch bei seiner Verteidigung des Ebionitismus heranzieht, oder b) eine von
Standpunkt des Ebioniten Evangelium gegen den kanonischen Mt. gerichtete Schrift

SYMMAGCHUS THE TRANSLATOR 125

with Juliana who sheltered him, probably during the persecution of
the emperor Caracalla, c. 216.’ Ambrosiaster (Proleg. in comm. in Gal.)
and Augustine (contra Faust. XIX, 4, c; contra Crescon. 1,36) mention
the sect of Symmachians who probably took their name from our
translator.®

J. Gwynn noted that Epiphanius dates Symmachus before Theo-
dotion, probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-80).° ‘Taking
into account the dates of Palladius to which we referred earlier, the
literary activity of Symmachus has to be set very early, in the last
years of this emperor, and Swete wonders whether Epiphanius may
not have reversed the sequence of the two translators, so that Theo-
dotion would have to be put under Marcus Aurelius and Symma-
chus under Gommodus (180~92).'" However, according to Busto Saiz
there is no need to assume this inversion if we accept that Origen
met Juliana in about 216.'!

In recent years the debate on the identity of Symmachus, his ori-
gin and the date of his translation has been taken up again. As a

verfast hat” (iid. 369). G. Zahn, Herkunfi und Lekrrichtung also claims to defend the
Ebionite association of this translator. D, Barthélemy, instead, who prefers the infor-
mation given by Epiphanius as a more secure foundation about Symmuachus, has
found seven other passages from the work by Eusebius in which that expression
occurs and concludes that it always means “to argue against” and never “Lo lean
on” (D. Barthélemy, Qui est Symmache?, 45681). Against Schoeps he claims categor-
ically that he was not an Ebionite, at least in the meaning given to that sect in
the Kerygmata Petri. This last interpretation is the one defended by O. Bardenhewer
in Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur 1, Freiburg in Br. 1913 (= Darmstadt 1962), 379.

7 Palladius, Historia Lausiaca LXIV (ed. C. Budler, The Lausiac History of Palladius,
Cambridge 1898): ‘Tovah, Tg méAw napBévocg év Karoapeia tig Kannadoxtas
Loyuaréen éhéyeto Kak motord:n urs "Qpryévny tov ouyypapéo. gebyovta. thy énaves-
toow tév ‘EAAivev ebéEato é énxt S60 em iBiorg évohdpoon Kai danpesia. cvauoboasa
tov &vdpa. Ebpov SE todta ed yeypoppeve, gy rohoorét Piprico ouxep®, iv b
byEyponto yeupi ‘Qpryévoug Todto % BiBAtov edpov eyo ropes ‘Touhuavh Hh nopéven
év Katoopeia, xpurtopevoc nap’ adtiy ittg gAcye nap’ adtod Luppaxov tod
épunvéws tOv ‘Iovdaiov odtd eiAngévar. (“And of a certain Juliana, a virgin in
Caesarea of Cappadocia, it was said that she was very learned and virtuous. For
two years she took Origen in, the writer who was flecing from the uprising of the
pagans, and attended to him with her own goods and services. And I found that
written in an old book, in verse, in which was written in Origen’s hand: ‘I found
this book in the house of Juliana, the virgin of Caesarea; it was hidden in her
house. And she said that she had received it from Symmachus himself, the trans-
lator of the Jew

# A, von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 1,1, 2098.

° J. Gwynn, “Symmachus”, DCB 4, 748-49, In this hypothesis the Levijpov of
the De Mens. et Ponderibus, 15, would be a corruption of Oijpov, the surname of
Marcus Aurelius.

0H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 50.

"J. R. Busto Saiz, La traduccién de Simaco en el libre de los Salmos, 319.

126 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

result of these recent studies, today the thesis of the Jewish origin
of Symmachus tends to predominate, proving Epiphanius to be right.
This is against him belonging to the Christian sect of the Ebionites,
as Eusebius and Jerome maintain, followed by modern scholars such
as H. J. Schoeps, for whom the translation by Symmachus would
be the Old Testament of that sect.

However, the English edition of the new Schiirer, published in
1986, continues to exclude Symmachus from the chapter on Jewish
translators of the Bible, under the pretext that, although he was
familiar with the early Jewish recensions, he himself was not a Jew.”
Most specialists, however, including myself, agree that the probable
source of Epiphanius is Origen and therefore the information is more
trustworthy. On the other hand, as Barthélemy, Van der Kooij and
Salvesen have noted, the mistake by Eusebius comes from a quo-
tation by Irenaeus (Adversus Haer. TI, 21.1) in his Historia Eccles. V,
8: there, Irenaeus, who does not know Symmachus, says that the
Ebionites followed Aquila and Theodotion in the translation of “alné
in Is. 7:14 as veavic. As this translation also occurs in Symmachus,
Eusebius concluded, from the commentaries by Irenacus, that
Symmachus was an Ebionite.'* On the other hand, in the exegesis
of Symmachus there is no trace of Ebionism,'* whereas there is
sufficient evidence that he was well acquainted with the rabbinic
exegesis of his time and the /argumim.'* As for his origin and the date
of his translation, there are considerable indications to locate him in
Galilee and possibly in Caesarea Maritima, around 200 cE, and it
is even probable that he was Sumkos ben Yosef.'®

" Le. its author continues to prefer the testimony of Eusebius, E. Schiirer, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol TIT. 1, revised and edited by
“Because

G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, Edinburgh 1986, p. 492
Symmachus, although he was acquainted with earlier Jewish recensio
that represented in the Leather Scroll of the Minor Prophets found at Qumran,
and was capable of using the Hebrew text independently, was not himself Jewish.”

5 D. Barthélemy, “Qui est Symmache?”, p. 460; A. van der Kooij, “Symmachus,
‘de vertaler der Joden’”, p. 7, and A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 289-90.

'* See A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentaiewch, 290-94 and 297: “There are no
traces of any Ebionite belief in his Pentateuch translation.”

5 See J. Gonzalez Luis, “La versién de Simaco a jos Profetas Mayores”, 288-354,
and Gonzalez Luis, “Los ‘targumim’ y la versién de Simaco”; J. R. Busto Saiz, La
fraducciin de Simaco en el libro de los Salmos, 311-23; A. van der Kooij, “Symmachos. de
vertaler de Joden’”, 13-17, and A. Salvesen, Symmachus i in the Pentateuch, 178 and 297.

© See A. van der Kooij. “Symmachos, ‘de vertaler der Joden’”, 18-20, and
A, Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 294 and 297. “The translation combined the
best Biblical Greek style, remarkable clarity, a high degree of accuracy regarding
the Hebrew text, and the rabbinic exegesis of his day: it might be described as a
Greek Targum, or Tannaitic Septuagint.”

SYMMACHUS THE TRANSLATOR 127
b) Sources for Symmachus

As in the case of Aquila towards the close of the 19th century, we
knew of no other texts of Symmachus except those transmitted by
quotations in the Fathers and marginal glosses to a few biblical man-
uscripts. There are many readings from “the three” in the com-
mentaries of Eusebius, Procopius, Theodoret, Jerome and others.
Likewise, some manuscripts of the LXX such as Athos Pantocrator
24 (= v of Brooke-McLean) or the Vaticanus Graecus 747 (= j of
Brooke~McLean) for the Pentateuch, or even the Codex Marchilianus
(Q.) and mss 86 and 710 for the prophets, were particularly rich in
this type of marginal reading. Their readings occur in other cate-
nary manuscripts’? and especially the Syro-Hexaplaric version. The
channel through which these readings were transmitted was the
Hexapla, for we know that Syrmmachus filled the fourth column of
this great synoptic work. The Hexaplaric fragments are collected in
the work by Field."* As we saw in the previous chapter, in 1896 the
discovery by Mercati of the Hexaplaric Psalter in a Milan palimpsest
was announced, a text that was published in 1958. It is difficult to
overestimate the importance of this edition, since in fact for Symmachus
it provides for the first time a set of continuous texts long enough
to enable study of his style and translation techniques.

To this highly important material have to be added other more
fragmentary publications: in Taylor’s publication in 1900 there are
fragments of Hexaplaric Psalm 22 and consequently fragments of
Symmachus'® from the Cairo Genizah material. In 1910, C. Wessely
published a new fragment which contained Psalms 68:13-14, 30-33
and 80:11-14, fragments which he attributed hastily and incorrectly
to Aquila but which Nestle, Mercati and Capelle claimed almost
simultancously for Symmachus.”” They are parchment fragments of
the 3rd/4th centuries cE from El Fayum and now form part of the

" See chapter 18.

18 P. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt.

' C. Taylor, Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests Including a Fragment of the 224
Psalm According to Origen’s Hexapla, Cambridge 1900. It contains the text of Symmachus
for Ps. 22:15-18. See ibid. pp. 39-41.

” Ci. Wessely, “Un nouveau fragment”; E. Nestle, “Sy chus, not Aquila”;
G. Mercati, “Frammenti di Aquila o di Simmaco?”; P. Capelle, “Fragments du Psautier
d’Aquila?”. Capelle excludes Aquila as the author of these fragments. They seem
to be by Symmachus, he but does not actually state this categorically. ‘The
lack of documentation for ‘Theodotion, the quia and the sexta for this passage pre-
cludes anything more explicit.

128 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

Rainer collection in Vienna. A mere glance at the fragments col-
lected by Field alongside the texts of Wessely shows that they are
by Symmachus. Wessely was probably mistaken because they pre-
serve the Tetragrammaton written in palaeo-Hebrew characters. However,
this is precisely why the fragments are even more interesting, since
besides being the oldest witness we have of the version by Symmachus —
an indication that in the 3rd/4th centuries it was still being copied
in Egypt — they prove that the Telragrammaton was preserved in palaeo-
Hebraic not only in the version by Aquila but also in that by
Symmachus and perhaps the one by Theodotion.

The cliscovery of Eusebius’ commentary on Isaiah, published recently,
considerably increased the material from Symmachus for this book.”!
However, both this material and the material mentioned earlier is
already incorporated in the critical editions of Gottingen and Cam-
bridge, with the exception of the book of Psalms as this edition of
the Gottingen series (1931; 2nd edn 1967) has no Hexaplaric apparatus.

These are the remains we have of the translator Symmachus.
However, the possibility that the future will provide us with even
more interesting discoveries in this respect is not to be excluded. If
we can trust the report of a Greek between 1565 and 1575, in the
library of a certain Konstantinos Barenos there was a Symmachian
translation of the whole Psalter and other portions of the Old
Testament. This has probably been lost in the meantime or it lies
in an undiscovered library of the Eastern Mediterranean.”

c) Characteristics

Until about twenty years ago, in order to study the translation tech-
niques, syntax and style of Symmachus, we could only refer to a

des Akylas, Symmachus und Vheodotion”, Probe eines ne
(1934), 176-83, and J. Ziegler, Husebius Werke IX. Der Jesaja-Kommentar, Berlin 1975.

% R. Forster, De antiquitaibus et libris mss. Constantinopolitanus, Rostock 1877. In
connection with a copy of a translation of the psalms which was found in the
bishop’s residence in Rodosto, Bratke was able to show, after considerable effort
(see “Das Schicksal der Handschriften in Rodosto bei Konstantinopel”, TLZ, [1894],
6) that it was destroyed in a fire in 1838 together with the irreplaceable original
of the dxouvfpata by Hegesippus, sce H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des
Judenchristentums, 35, 0. 2. On the possibility that manuscripts of Symmachus can
be found in some libraries in Greece, see H. Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus,
Versionibus Graecis et Latina Vulgata, Oxford 1705, 588.

SYMMACHUS THE TRANSLATOR 129

monograph from the mid-18th century by C. A. Thieme” and some
random remarks from the articles by Schoeps which, as will be seen,
were not written for a philological purpose. However, thanks to stud-
ies by J. R. Busto Saiz on the book of Psalms and by J. Gonzalez
Luis and A. Salvesen on the Pentateuch, today we have more reliable
criteria for the style and translation techniques used by Symmachus.”*
In fact, for the books mentioned, these scholars have analysed the
way in which Symmachus translates nouns and pronouns, Hebrew
verb forms, particles and particles of speech. In general they prove
that the translation by Symmachus was literal, less so than Aquila
but more than the LXX. But he also reproduces the meaning of
the original Hebrew clearly and fluently. His Greek, although obvi-
ously translation Greek, is very like the language of contemporary
Greck writers and was probably intended for middle-class Hellenised
Jews. And it is possible that Symmachus was trying to avoid the
feeling of absurdity that Aquila’s translation could evoke in readers
unfamiliar with Hebrew, showing by his translation that it was pos-
sible to translate the Bible into Greek with an acceptable style.”

Studies of the language of Symmachus have been excessively onc-
sided by defining it in contrast to the translation by Aquila. The
emphasis has been placed on Symmachus as transmitting the sense
of the phrase as against Aquila’s literalism, the latter constantly vio-
lating the syntax and hyperbaton of classical Greek. To this have
contributed Jerome’s words according to whom Aquila tried “ver-
bum de verbo exprimere” whereas Symmachus “sensum potius
sequi”.”’ Barthélemy even asserts that Symmachus’ language is close
to that of his contemporaries Lucian and Galen.”

However, this is true only in part, since on the one hand, Symma-
chus’ literalism in respect of the Hebrew text is comparable to that

* C. A. Thieme, Pro puritate Symmachi dissertatio.

* See Select Bibliography. The study of the psalms by Busto Saiz is important
as the book includes more continuous passages that have emerged recently but have
not been taken into account by the few previous studies. The studies by Gonzalez
Luis and Salvesen have the advantage of tackling a corpus of writings — the Major
Prophets and the Pentateuch — for which there are already critical editions and in
which, therefore, the Hexaplar material is more correct.

*® See J. R. Busto Saiz, La traduccién de Simaco en el libro de los Salmos, 278-86,
and A, Salvesen, Spmmachus in the Pentateuch, 198-264.

2 H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 51.

27 Jerome, Praef. in Chron, Eus. and Praef. in Job.

* D. Barthélemy, “Qui est Symmache?”, 463.

130 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

of Aquila, apart from his real concern for conveying the sense. On
the other hand, comparison with contemporary Greek writers can
throw light on some aspects of the lexicon, but these should not be
exaggerated since Symmachus’ Greek continues to be translation
Greek, which places it on a different level from writers such as Lucian,
Plutarch or Galen.”

With these provisos we can move on to examine some of the tech-
niques he uses to improve a translation such as Aquila’s, which could
not be read by a Greek-speaking public who did not know Hebrew.

1. Symmachus tends to change paratactic Hebrew constructions joined
by koi in the LXX into syntagms of a participle plus a finite verb.
He also replaccs Hebrew constructions with 6° plus infinitive with
genitive absolutes. Let us look at these features, comparing them
with the LXX construction:

Ps. 26:2 LXX: obévnoov Kai énecav
so opahévtes Enecov

Ps. 9:4 LXX: — év 1 Grootpagiivor tov éy8pdv yoo
s’ évastpagévtav tav éx8pv pov

2. In Greck he usually smoothes over the sequence of two consec-
utive verbs, which reflects a known Hebraism, by using an adverb
or adjective in apposition:

Gen. 4:2 LXX: apooé6nxev texeiv
o médw Etexev

In other words, he adapts Hebrew idioms to Greek usage as can be
seen in the following translations where the LXX retains the Hebraism:

2 Sam. 12:5 LXX: vids Gavatov
3’ Eos Bavétov

1 Sam. 9:20 LXX: — wh 6fi¢ thy Kapdiav cov
o” un wepmvnons

1 Sam. 30:21 LXX: tpadtmoav adtov t& cic eipqvnv
o’ hondcavto abtots

Ex. 5:7 LXX: xobénep éxy8ic xai tpitnv huépov
o xabdnxep Kai xpdtepov

* See J. R. Busto Saiz, La traduccién de Simaco en el libro de los Salmos, 284-85.
Busto notes how the word order and sparing use of illative particles show that there
is a wide gulf between the translation by Symmachus and texts originally composed.
in Greek.

SYMMACHUS THE TRANSLATOR 131

3. He elegantly translates concepts expressed in Hebrew by more
than one word using a sufficiently expressive Greck word:

Is. 52:8 LXX: dqOcapoi xpd¢ spPoApot<s
0” 6pParApopavas

4. Unlike Aquila, he does not restrict a particular Greek word to
the same Hebrew term but, especially in translating the particles, he
uses greater variety. However, this variety should not be exagge-
rated, As Salvesen has noted, Symmachus tends to standardise the
vocabulary,** and Busto insists on how literal Symmachus is and how
rarely he uses illative particles.’ The only thing that stands out is
the frequent use of Gp, quite rare in the other biblical translators,
to translate the Hebrew particle that introduces a direct question.”

5. He tones down anthropomorphisms and other expressions in con-
nection with the deity. He avoids comparisons between man and
God. He docs not accept the existence of other gods so that the
expression “other gods” in Dt. 31:20 is translated “false gods”.
Similarly, he tends to eliminate the presence of angels: in Gen. 6:2
neither “the sons of God” nor “angels” couple with the daughters
of men but the “powerful ones” (viol tv Svvactevdvtav).” Here
are some other classical examples of this trait of his translation:

Ps. 43:24 LXX: — ivati drvois, wbpie
o’ ivati &> drvev ei, Séon0T0.

Gen. 1:27 LXX: kai éxoinsev 6 Geds tov &vOpanov, Kat’ cixdva
Geod éxoinoev abtév
3’ Kal Exticev 6 Bedg tov GvOpaxov év cikdvi
Siapdpe, SpOrov 0 Gebs Exrisev odtdv.*

% A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 242-49.

4. R. Busto Saiz, La traduccién de Simaco en el libra de los Salmos, 278 and 285.

® J. R. Busto Saiz, La traducciin de Stmaco en el libro de los Salmos, 271.

“A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 192.

“ The free nature of the translation by Symmachus in a book such as Genesis,
which is well documented by the manuscripts ue J. W. Wevers, Sepluaginia. Vetus
Testamentum Graecum. I Genesis, Gottmgen 1974), has caused some puzzlement among
scholars. For Schoeps the translator did so because he tended to avoid anthropo-
morphisms (the reason would be “die fiir 6” typische Scheu vor Anthropomorphismen”,
see H. J. Schoeps, Symmachus und der Midrash, 49ff.). It is true that a few verses
earlier, in Gen. 1:26 according to the witness of Philoponus, Symmachus applics a
technique that he often uses, the insertion of os for nuance: xai cinev 0 O8dc-
roijcopev GvOpanov Hc eikéva Hudv «a8? Gpoimow juov. However that may
be, this is one of his well-known techniques, whereas the passage we are discussing
goes beyond refining the anthropomorphism and inserts a different exegesis of the
creation of man. The idea of man as unago Dei was repugnant to Josephus for

132 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

Other characteristics noted by Thieme in the work mentioned, such
as frequent use of paraphrase even when no dogmatic reasons arc
involved, or the reduction of transcriptions from Hebrew as much
as possible, are much more subject to revision. The conclusions
drawn by Schoeps about Symmachus belonging to the Ebionite sect
from the translation of ’ebyon by névng and ‘anf by atwyxdc are to be
rejected. In fact, no traces of Ebionism have been found, at least in
his translation of the Pentateuch.® More convincing for me, instead,
are Schoeps’ remarks on this translator’s knowledge of Greek mythol-
ogy. In fact the systematic translation of r‘fa’im by Qeoudyo. (Job
26:5; Prov. 9:18; 21:16) can only be understood from the associa-
tion of these characters with the giants of Greek sagas. The same
applies to the translation of Adie for fit in Is. 34:14 (LXX trans-
lates évoxévtavpon), ‘night demon’, the feminine equivalent of Satan
in Jewish demonology, which in the Greek version by Symmachus
evokes the fabulous monster who feeds on human flesh."

This translation often reproduces the late meaning of Hebrew
roots, as Geiger has illustrated” and Schoeps has noticed in it con-
tacts with Midrash and rabbinic hermencutics.* Gonzalez Luis insists
that most of the hermencutical techniques used by the Targum are
to be found in Symmachus although in a more concise and sober

philosophical reasons, and also in connection with the biblical ban on making images
of the deity (see J. Jervell, “Imagenes und Imago Dei. Aus der Genesis-Exegese des
Josephus” Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen
Testament. Festschrift fiir Otto Michel, Gottingen 1974, 197-204, and M. Smith, The
Image of God. BERL 40 [1958|, 473-512). According to Schoeps, this translation of
Symmachus was inspired by the MidraS Rabba on Qoh. 7:29 which interprets
Hebrew yasar as ‘upright, crect’, not as ‘just’, in contrast to animals. However, as
noted by A. Salvesen (Symmachus in the Peniateuch, 6-7), (he context of the Midra§
shows that yaar is taken in the moral sense, whereas the translation by Symmachus
clearly suggests a physical meaning. In fact, the clearest parallels to this translation
by Symmachus are to be found in Christian writers: the interpretation of the cre-
ation of man as erect in contrast to the creation of animals is one of the most
widespread éspoi in the anthropological reflections of antiquity, see Justin, Apologia, °
55, 3; Lactantius, inst 2, 1, 14; opi Dei 10, 16; Augustine, De civ. Dei 19, 4;
Athanasius in PG 25, 64B. And on the etymology of &vOpmnoc, see I. Opelt,
“Christianisierung heidnischer Etymologien”, JAC 2 (1959), 70-86, p. 82.

*® H. J. Schoeps, “Ebionitisches bei Symmachus”. In the nine fragments of Psalms
published by Mercati, Symmachus translates Gn? in Ps. 17(18):28 by xp&ov, not
rimyog. See also A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 290-94.

* See H. J. Schoeps, “Mythologisches bei Symmachus”.

* A. Geiger, “Symmachus der Ubersetzer der Bibel”, and L. J. Liebreich, “Notes
on the Greek Version of Symmachus”.

% H. J. Schoeps, “Symmachus und der Midrash”.

SYMMACHUS THE TRANSLATOR 133

form.” Here he is in agreement with Salvesen, for whom the hag-
gada of Symmachus compared with that of Ongelos is more concise
in form.” Salvesen also insists on the analogies between Symmachus
and the exegesis of the Targumim, especially the Palestinian, and
shows that some of his translations seem to have been made through
Aramaic." From the studies by Ziegler and Cannon and more recently
by Gonzalez Luis and Salvesen we know to what extent Jerome
incorporates in the Vulgate quite a number of his readings: in this
undertaking he follows Symmachus more than any other translator.

d) Current Research and Future Prospects

In contrast to Aquila and Theodotion, no specialist has identified
Symmachus as the author of an Aramaic Targum, although on occa-
sion his translation does reflect some semantic Aramaisms. Instead
these translators are connected by the fact that Symmachian read-
ings have been identified which are earlier than the historical Sym-
machus as he is described in the ancient sources. It is surprising,
however, that while much has been said about Us-Theodotion and
more recently of the predecessors of Aquila, no-one has alluded, at
least explicitly, to the traces of Symmachian readings prior to the
historical Symmachus. Nevertheless, it must be accepted that this
problem is posed with less force than in the other two cases and
has thus scarcely been hinted at in the past.

Even so, a few sporadic indications collected and treated system-
atically could help us to reflect by introducing one more discordant
element into the already crowded field of revisions of the LXX. In
any event I will try to clarify the real background to the Symmachian
translation.

As early as 1889, E. Hatch noted how a scrics of words in the

” J. Gonzalez Luis, “Los ‘targumim’ y la version de Simaco”.

A, Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 263.

4" A, Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 177-94.

® J. Ziegler, Die jiingeren griechischen Ubersetzungen als Vorlagen, 6 and 76ff.: “die vor-
liegende Schrift wird zeigen, dass wir sehr oft in unserer Vulgata Aquila und
Theodotion, namentlich aber Symmachus in lateinischer Verkleidung begegnen”
(p. 6). W. W. Cannon, “Jerome and Symmachus: Some Points in the Vulgata Trans-
lation of Koheleth”, ZAW NF 4 (1927), 191-99, and F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum
quae supersunt. Prolegomena XXXIVIT. See also J. Gonzalez Luis, “La traduccién Vulgata
y Simaco”, and A, Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 265-79, p. 279: “It is evident
from a comparison of the versions that Jerome especially favoured Sym.’s version.”

134 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

New Testament that do not occur anywhere else in the Greek Bible
are attested in “the three”, especially in Symmachus.* These agree-
ments by themselves do not argue dependence, since the factor of
greater chronological proximity between the New Testament writers
and the translations by “the three” would be enough to explain these
linguistic preferences which are lacking from the LXX.

However, the situation becomes complex when we detect not only
the closeness of Symmachus to the lexicon of the New Testament
writers, but his close relationship with the lexicon of the book of
Wisdom, as Fichtner has noted,** with Proverbs, 1-4 Maccabees and
especially with the book of Sira (translated in 132 Bax, as indicated
in the prologue), to the point that Ziegler even states that Symmachus
and the Greek translator of Sira belong to the same school of trans-
lation. To explain these surprising agreements, Ziegler does not use
the hypothesis of the existence of proto-Symmachian texts, although
he admits that similar texts were in circulation, as has been confirmed
by the Twelve Prophets scroll from Qumran.** However, he prefers
to resolve the aporia along the lines that these terms which also occur
in Symmachus were common currency at the time, in the 2nd and
Ist centuries BcE.*’ Even so, Ziegler’s argument cannot satisfy us as
it is inconsistent. On the one hand, he admits that the translator of
Sira (2nd century pce) and Symmachus belong to the same trans-

® E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford 1889, 25-26. Some of these are:
éyxaxeiv, 6’ in Gen. 27:46 and in Lk. 18:1 etc.; éuBpy&oOo1: o in Ps. 75:7 and
Is. 17:18 and in Mt. 9:30 etc.; év@bpnoic, o° in Job 21:27 and in Mt. 9:4 etc;
éxiPAnuoa,, o” in Josh. 9:11 and in Mt. 9:16, etc.; Peoudyoc, only in o” for Job 26:5;
Prov. 9:18 and 21:16 and in Acts 5:39; dpoBecia, o” in Ex. 19:12 and Acts 17:26;
orhoyyvitecbor, o’ in 1 Sam. 23:21 and in the NT passim; évactatotv o” {five
times as against once in LXX and once in Aquila) and twelve times in the syn-
optics. See also H. B. Swete, An Introduction io the Old Testament in Greek, 460.

* ‘J. Fichtner, “Der AT-Text der Sapientia Salomonis”, ZAW 57 {1939}, 155-92.
The kinship in the lexicon and the agreement with Symmachus against the LXX
in OT quotations leads Fichtner to conclude that the author of Wisdom used bib-
lical texts translated by a predecessor of Symmachus (pp. 168 and 191ff}.

*® J. Ziegler, “Zum Wortschatz des griechischen Sirach”, Fesischrifi O. Eissfeldt,
BZAW 77, 1958, 284: “Beide (Sirach und Symmachus) gehéren einer gemeinsamen
Ubersetzerschule an, die eine einheitliche Tradition weitergeben.”

® According to Barthélemy, although each book requires separate discussion, for
the ‘Twelve Prophets it has been shown that Symmachus knows and uses both the
kaige recension and the Hebrew text in his translation, whereas he does not seem
to know the unrevised LXX or Aquila’s version, see D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers
d’Aquila, 261~65.

* J. Ziegler, “Zum Wortschatz”, 287: “es ist eben so, dass die mit Symmachus
iibereinstimmenden Vokabein damals {im 2. und |. Jh. v. Chr.) ‘gangig’ waren”.

SYMMACGHUS THE TRANSLATOR 135

lation school; on the other, he refuses to accept predecessors of
Symmachus — proto-Symmachian texts — resorting to the argument
that these lexical agreements have to be considered as words that
belonged to the language current at that time. This explanation may
be valid for the agreements in vocabulary with the New Testament,
due to its greater closeness in time with the historical Symmachus
compared with the LXX. However, for the agreements with Sira,
can one speak of ‘words current at that time’ (“die .. . damals ‘gingig’
waren”) when four centuries lic between Sira and the translation by
Symmachus? Why should Sira agree precisely with Symmachus and
not agree in the same way with Aquila and Theodotion, if those
words were common currency then? It seems clear that Ziegler’s
reply evades the issue, and, lacking any better explanation, consid-
eration must again be given to other explanations that fit the facts
better and throw light on the possible base texts used by Symmachus
in his translation. These aspects seem all the more interesting smce
other witnesses of Symmachian readings prior to Symmachus have
emerged. Here are some of them:

Swete drew attention to the lexical agreements with Symmachus
of the gospel of Peter, which is not later than 170 ce: in particular,
the use of the verb bxopOdw (10:39), a word exclusive to Symmachus
in Pss 43:19 and 72:2.4° And Thackeray noted in respect of Josephus
that the closest allied biblical text to Josephus in Samuel—Kings
was Symmachus — together with the proto-Lucianic — and mentions
a series of interesting parallels. In the book of the Twelve Prophets,
Swete was surprised to find in Justin more than one reading attributed

© HB. Swete, An Iniroduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 50, n. 4, and Ph. Viel-
hauer, Geschichte der urchristichen Literatur, New York 1975, 643. For the gospel of
Peter, see the edition by E. Klostermann in Apocrypha 1, KT 3, Berlin 1933.

* Tt does not occur elsewhere in Greek literature, until the 4th century cr, in
Dositheus. However, although the agreement is surprising it is not decisive nor can
it be concluded that this apocryphon knows and cites Symmachus. Since the quo-
tation of Ps. 21:2 in 4:19 agrees with no known Greck version i.e: } Siveis wou,
4 Sbvopic pov KatéAudc je. Whereas known biblical texts for this passage are

LXX: 6 Beb¢ 6 Oedg pov ivartt éykatéAués pe;

a’ isxyupé pov, ioyvpé pov, ivati éyotéAuég pe

o' & 6 Beds pov, 6 Dedc pov (the rest is missing).

Nor do the other free quotations by this gospel of Dt. 21:22f, (in 2:5 and 5:15)
or Is. 8:29/10:27 allow any conclusions to be drawn in this respect.

® H. St J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian, New York 1929, 75-99,
especially p. 86, n. 33. For | Sam. we have contacts with Symmachus in the fol-
lowing passages: 13:20 (viv); 15:23 (areWetv), 30 (typfioon); 61:21 and 31:4 (odo@dpoc);
17:39 (+ d&ybpvactog yép eipr).

136 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

to Symmachus, which led him to conclude that these variants belong
to an older version or recension from which both Symmachus and
Justin took them.*! Today, though, with the data from the Greek
fragments of Nahal Hever, we would have to resolve these agree-
ments in the best way possible on the basis of the katye recension
used in that book by both Symmachus and Justin.** However, once
the length of this recension has been established, it is necessary to
study in more detail the link between Symmachus and the xatye
recension in the other books in order to stratify the textual shape
of the Greek Bible precisely for the Christian period.

Along the same lines, the perplexing ficld of New Testament quo-
tations remains to be studied.” In respect of these quotations of
the Old Testament in the Apocalypse of John, Trudinger cites the
study by Smits, which provides information according to which the
Greek version of Symmachus seems to underlie the wording of
the Old Testament material cited in the Apocalypse.’* And Taba-
chowitz connects the iote ywaoKovtes of Eph. 5:5 — as a formula
which corresponds to the Symmachian technique of translation —
with the {ote yyvdoxovtes of Jer. 49(42):22 as an asterisked addi-
tion of Symmachus for the Hebrew expression yadoa‘ téd‘“i, the same
syntagm that LXX translates at the end of v. 19 by yévteg yaoeobe.
It is an interesting coincidence on which Tabachowitz comments as
follows: “Aus der Ubereinstimmung mit der besprochenen Stelle des
Epheserbriefes ist zu schliessen, dass solch cine Ubersetzungsvariante
schon zur Zeit des Paulus gebrauchlich war und ihn zur Wahl des
Ausdrucks angeregt hat.”%°

Elsewhere we have shown how text Barberini of Hab. 3 belongs
to the translation school of Symmachus both for its lexicon and the
translation techniques used, but it could not be identified with the

| H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 422: “In the Minor
Prophets it is startling to find in Justin more than one rendering which is attrib-
uted to Symmachus; and as it is in the highest degree improbable that his text has
been altered from the text of Symmachus... we are led to the conclusion that
these readings belong to an older version or recension from which both Justin and
Symmachus drew.”

® 1), Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 203ff. and 261 ff.

™ See chapter 21 for an extensive survey of current research and the most impor-
tant questions to be resolved,

* L. P. Trudinger, “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament
in the Book of Revelation”, 77S NS 17 (1966), 82-88, and C. Smits, Oud-Testamentische
Cilaten in het Nreuwe Testament, 2 vols, ‘The Hague 1952-55.

%® D. Tabachovitz, Die Sepiuaginia und das Neue Testament, Lund 1956, 92.

SYMMAGHUS THE TRANSLATOR 137

final edition of Symmachus as we know it from the Hexaplaric frag-
ments preserved for this chapter. In dating this translation before
the end of the Ist century cE, we use as an explanation either a
school of Symmachus with certain translation techniques, or at least
the existence of a non-uniform text of Symmachus which has to
include also some predecessors before the final edition.*

From analysis and study of the Theodotionic text of Daniel, Schmitt
deduces that this text, traditonally attributed to Theodotion, is more
likely to belong to Symmachus, specifically and above all the deute-
rocanonical sections or Greek supplements to the book, duc to the
strong contacts they have with that translator.*’ However, the data
provided by Schmitt have convinced neither Barthélemy nor Busto
Saiz, although Schmitt continues to maintain his thesis that the
Theodotionic text of Daniel is not the same as the Theodotion trans-
mitted by the Hexapla and it cannot be proved that the reviser of
the canonical scctions of Daniel was the same as the reviser of the
deuterocanonical sections.”

A new discovery among the Hexaplaric readings rescued by
W. Baars in his publication of new fragments of the Syro-Hexaplaric
version has increased the number of Symmachian readings before
the historical Symmachus. It is no longer only a question of identical

56 Translations that might justify what Jerome says about two editions of Symmachus
and the ascriptions to him by some manuscripts and ancient writers of two read-
ings for the same passage. See N. Fernandez Marcos, “El texto Barberini de Habacuc
Il reconsiderado”.

57 A Schmitt, Stamit der sogenannte “Q’?-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?, MSU
IX, Géttingen 1966, 111: “Es sind auflallende Beriihrungen mit o’ vorhanden,
jedoch reichen diese noch nicht zum Beweis aus, dass die deuterokanonische Stiic-
ke des “8”-Textes wirklich von o” stammen. Hierzu miisste vor allem die Syntax
von 6” noch genau erforscht werden, um auf diese Frage eine Antwort geben zu
kénnen.”

58 1D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de VAncien Testament 3, Fribourg-Géttingen 1992,
p. CLXXVIII: “Mais ici il ne faut pas oublier que le “Theodotion’ de Daniel est
de tous les prétendus @ celui qui présente les meilleurs titres d’identilé puisque, pour
Videntifier, ce n’est pas de la structure des hexaples que nous dépendons, mais que
nous disposons ici des témoignages formels d’Origéne et de Jéréme, Mieux vaudrait
donc mettre en doute toutes les autres attributions de textes a Théodotion que celle-
ci qui doit demeurer pour nous la pierre de touche de lauthenticité théodotionienne.”
Busto Saiz also concludes, against Schmitt’s suggestion, that the Theodotionic text
of Daniel in the deuterocanonical sections definitely does not belong to Symmachus,
see J. R. Busto Saiz, “El texto teodociénico de Daniel y la traduccién de Simaco”,
54°55.

59 A. Schmitt, “Die griechischen Danieltexte (8° und 0’) und das Theodotion-
problem”, BZ 36 (1992), 1-29, p. 29.

138 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

vocabulary due to greater closeness in time but a complete identi-
cal clause. The new reading of Symmachus recovered for Dt. 32:35,
gpot éxducioeis Kal dvtan0Sac"™ is probably the source of this curi-
ous quotation in Rom. 12:19 and Heb. 10:30.

Lastly, M. Philonenko has noticed a series of agreements between
the translation by Symmachus and the Paralipomena Jeremiae. These
agreements have Jed him to conclude that the author of this pseude-
pigraphical text used the translation by Symmachus, which mcans
that the final redaction of that work has to be dated back to the
end of the 2nd century ce.*' As explained elsewhere, these agrec-
ments have to be set in the context of Symmachian witnesses before
the historical Symmachus. To some extent these indications tell us
that not only Aquila but also Symmachus had his predecessors."
Symmachus certainly knew Aquila when making his translation; somc-
times he accepts elements from that version and others he expressly
rejects. He probably also knew and used Theodotion and. the koyé
revision. And although it cannot be stated with certainty, he prob-
ably also knew the ancient LXX." Tt is not surprising then that these
Symmachian readings detected before the historical Symmachus
belong to some of those Vorlage that he knows and with which in
part he identifies.

As yet we have only incomplete knowledge of the phases of the
Greek Bible before the period of the great recensions. However there
are enough indications that quite early on revisions were in circu-
lation that were used not only by Symmachus but also by Aquila,
at Jeast, to complete their editions. In the words of L. Gil,“ “the
originality and independence of our author would be less if one had
to think that he used the long tradition of revisions of the Greek
Bible”; but the process would be much more consistent and above
all it would fit the facts better as they are being revealed through
recent finds and specialist studies. Even so, this dependence on ear-
licr revisions should not be exaggerated, and Symmachus should con-
tinue to remain as a new, independent translation.® In future it is

© W. Baars, Naw Sprohexaplaric Texts, Leiden 1968, 148.
51M. Philonenko, “Les Paralipoménes de Jérémie et la traduction de Symmaque”,
. 145.
® See N, Fernandez Marcos, “Simmaco y sus predecesores judios”, pp. 197-98.
8} See A. Salvesen, Spmmachus in the Pentateuch, 262.
TL. Gil, “Simmaco”, 702.
See L. L. Grabbe, “The Translation ‘Technique of the Greek Minor Versions:
Translations ar Revisions?”, Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 1992, 505-56,

SYMMACHUS THE TRANSLATOR 139

imperative to complete monographs on the lexicon and translation
techniques of Symmachus in order to sift critically what is attrib-
uted to him and to gain a better knowledge of this author’s lan-
guage. Indirectly it would make it possible to interpret better those
readings found in documents that are earlier than him.

Among the manuscripts of unpublished theses in the possession of
Dropsie College is one by L. J. Liebreich with the title “Prolegomena
to a Greek-Hebrew and Hebrew—Greek Index to Symmachus. Letter
Alpha”. Nothing more is known about it, even though the author
published some notes on Symmachus in 1944.7 Katz and Ziegler
suggested that as soon as possible scholars of the Greek Bible should
compile indexes to Symmachus and Theodotion, like the one for
Aquila,” and they put forward some methodological remarks to that
effect. However, so far we do not have such essential reference
works. Similarly, in the area of translation techniques and syntax,
only the last monographs discussed have helped to remove outdated
topics that are persistently repeated.”

p. 517: “Symmachus is so often different from the Kaige — as well as from the LXX
and Aquila — as to make the question of a revision difficult. It seems to be an inde-
pendent translation, though one could argue that the LXX, fai, and Aquila all
had their influence on it.”

8 In JOR NS 24 (1933), 102.

7 L, J. Liebreich, “Notes on the Greek Version of Symmachus”,

® P, Katz and J. Ziegler, “Ein Aquila-Index in Vorbercitung. Prolegomena und
Specimina” IL. V7 8 (1958), 274. And also J. Ziegler, Die Septuaginia. Erbe und Auftrag.
Wirzburg 1962, 17: “Ihre Vokabeln (of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion) sind
nur fehler- und Hickenhaft in der Konkordanz von Hatch-Redpath verzeichnet. Es
ist unerlasslich, dass baldméglichst griechisch-hebriische und hebraisch--griechische
Indizes dieser drei wichtigen Ubersetzungen (des Aquila, Symmachus und ‘Theodotion)
erarbeitet werden.”

® To some extent, J. R. Busto Saiz has done this for the book of Psalms in the
third part of La traduccién de Simaco en el libro de los Salmos, pp. 443-756.

*® One example of transliteration is enough. Does Symmachus transliterate Hebrew
as litte as possible, as has been said repeatedly up to now? A few partial sound-
te that this is not always the case. For example, in the book of Isaiah,
us transliterates words that Aquila translates, some of them well known:
sovp in Is. 10:26; wy in 13:21; apip in 17:9; eudv (cui) in 33:3. On this last
transliteration, see H. J. Schoeps, “Ein neuer Engelname in der Bibel? (Zur Uber-
setzung des Symmachus Jes 33, 3p, in Leitschrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 1
(1948), 86-87.

140 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

SeLect BrsuioGRAPHy

Barthélemy, D., “Qui est Symmache?”. P. W. Skehan Festschrift. CBQ. 36 (1974),
451-65.

Busto Saiz, J. R., “El texto teodociénico de Daniel y la traduccion de Simaco”.
Sefarad 40 (1980), 41-55.

~——., La traduccién de Simaco en el libro de los Salmos, Madrid 1978 (reprint 1985).

Capelle, P., “Fragments du Psautier d’Aquila?” RBén 28 (1911), 64-68.

Fernandez Marcos, N., “El texto Barberini de Habacuc II reconsiderado”. Sefarad
36 (1976), 3-36.

~, “Simmaco y sus predecesores judios”. Biblische und judaistische Studien. Festschrift
iir Paolo Sacchi, ed. A. Vivian, Frankfurt-Bern—NewYork~Paris 1990, 193-202.

Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1875.

Geiger, A., “Symmachus der Ubersetzer der Bibel”. Jiidische Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft
und Leben \ (1862), 39-64,

Gil, L., “Simmaco”. EncBibl 6 (1965), 701-702.

Gonzalez Luis, J., “La traduccién Vulgata y Simaco”. Tabona 4 (1983), 267-80.

~~--~-—, “La version de Simaco a los Profetas Mayores”, Madrid, Diss. Complutensian
Univ. 1981.

; “Los ‘targumim’ y la version de Simaco”. Simposio Biblico Espanol, 1984,
255-68.

Graew, M. J., “Symmachus ben Joseph”. Encyclopaedia Judaica 15 (1971), 578-79.

Greenspoon, L., “Symmachus’s Version”. ABD 6, 1992, 251.

Jellicoe, S., SAIS, 94-99.

Klijn, A. F. J., “The Study of Jewish Christianity”. N7S 20 (1973-74), 419-31.

Labate, A., “L’apporto della catena Hauniense sull’Ecclesiaste per il testo delle ver-
sioni greche di Simmaco e della LXX”. RivB 35 (1987), 57-61.

Liebreich, L. J., “Notes on the Greek Version of Symmachus”. JBL 63 (1944),
397-403.

Mercati, G., “Frammenti di Aquila 0 di Simmaco?” RB 8 (1911), 266-72.
~—, Leta: di Simmaco Vinterprete e S. Epifanio ossia se Simmaco tradusse in greco la Bibbia
sotia M. Aurelio il fiosofo, Modena 1892 = ST 76 (1937), 20-92.

Nestle, E., “Symmachus, not Aquila”. ET 22 (1910), 377.

O’Connell, K. G., “Greek Versions (Minor)”. IDBS (1976), 377-81.

Perles, F., “Symmachus”. JZ 11 (1905), 619.

Philonenko, M., “Les Paralipoménes de Jérémie et la traduction de Symmaque”. RHPhR
34 (1984), 143-45,

Salvesen, A., Symmachus in the Pentateuch, Manchester 1991.

Schoeps, H. J., Ebionitisches bei Symmachus. Coniectanea Neotestamentica 6, Uppsala
1942 (= Symmachusstudien 1), 62-93.

> “Mythologisches bei Symmachus”. Bib 26 (1945), 100-111 (= Symmachusstudien
TI)

——, “Symmachus und der Midrash”. Bib 29 (1947), 31-51 (= Spmmachusstudien 11).

wwe, Theologie und Geschichte des Fudenchristentums, Tiibmgen 1949, especially pp.
33-37 and 350-80.

Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 49-53.

Thieme, C. A., Pro puritate Symmachi dissertatio, Leipzig 1755.

van der Kooij, A., “Symmachus, ‘de vertaler der Joden’”. Nederlands Theologisch
Tydschrift 42 (1988), 1-20.

Wessely, C., “Un nouveau fragment de la version grecque du Vieux Testament par
Aquila” [in fact Lymmachus]. Mélanges offerts @ M. E. Chételain, Paris 1910,
224-429,

Zahn, G., “Herkunfi und Lehrrichtung des Bibeliibersetzers Symmachus”. NKZ 34
(1923), 197-209.

SYMMACHUS THE TRANSLATOR 141

Ziegler, J., jiingeren griechischen Ubersetzungen als Vorlagen der Vulgata in
den prophetischen Schriften”. Beilage zum Personal- und Vorlesungsv mis d. Staatl.
Akademie zu Braunsberg-Ostpr. WS 1943-44, 1-92 (= Joseph Ziegler Splloge 139-229).

~, “Textkritische Notizen zu den jiingeren griechischen Ubersetzungen des
Buches Isaias”, Nachr. d. Ak. d. Wiss. zu Gittingen, Philolog.-Hist. Klasse 1939,
75-102. (= Joseph Ziegler Splloge, Gottingen 1971, 71-139).

CHAPTER NINE

THEODOTION AND THE KAITE REVISI

It is now three decades since S. Jellicoe, after much effort in analy-
sis and systematisation, ended by admitting that “Paradoxical though
it may seem, less is known today of Theodotion than ever before.”!
Today matters are slightly clearer, and in one way or another definitive
conclusions have been reached concerning all the points debated.
Accordingly we shall take the course followed in previous chapters,
aware of the increasing discrepancy between ancient information
about the historical Theodotion and the unexpected results of mod-
ern research, filled as they are with question marks. To remedy this
discrepancy and in the hope that more exhaustive studies will be
extended in a systematic way to all the Thcodotionic material we
have, we shall insist on complete rigour on the last point about cur-
rent research, leaving the specialised reader to form his own judge-
ment or adopt a position in respect of the many points now subject
to revision.

a) Ancient Witnesses

The scant information we have about Theodotion (0’) from Irenacus,
Epiphanius and Jerome leaves us somewhat perplexed. Apparently
the most reliable information is from Irenaeus, who describes him
as a Jewish proselyte from Ephesus.’ The account by Epiphanius’
seems to be too much like the one about Aquila for it to be trust-
worthy, even though it conditioned all later interpretations concerning
Theodotion. Barthélemy has stressed its chronological contradictions."
He accepts instead the testimony of Irenaeus and identifics Theodotion

1 §. Jellicoe, SMS, 94. He makes this statement after devoting more than twelve
pages to Theodotion, more than to Aquila and Symmachus combined.

? Adversus Haer. Ul, 21.1: Oeodotiov Apptvevoev 6 ‘Egéctog Kat “AbiAac...
ép@dtepor “lovdaior mpoojAvtor (“They translated Theodotion of Ephesus and
Aquila... the two Jewish proselytes”).

* Who makes him a native of Pontus and a disciple of Marcion of Sinope, see
De Mens. et Ponderibus, 17.

* PD. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 14441.

‘HEODOTION AND THE KAIE REVISION 143

as Jonathan ben ‘“Uziel, the author of the Targum bearing his name.?
According to Jerome he was an Ebionite.®

Nothing certain can be said concerning the date that he made his
translation. The sequence Aquila-Symmachus—Theodotion in which
they are normally cited in ancient sources is probably due to the
way their respective versions were arranged in the columns of the
Hexapla; Aquila came first as it was the closest to the Hebrew text,
and Theodotion was next to the LXX as he coincided most with
the Alexandrian version. Furthermore, if we trust the statements of
Epiphanius and Jerome, Theodotion edited a revision of the LXX
on the basis of the standardised Hebrew text before a new inde-
pendent translation.’ Proof that he made his revision on the basis
of the Hebrew textus receplus is the fact that in the book of Job he
filled in the missing sections of the LXX version so that it is one-
sixth longer than the original LXX.*

There are two further problems in connection with Theodotion
which since ancient times have puzzled students of the Greek Bible. (1)
On the one hand, the existence of a “double text” in the book of
Daniel, already noted by Jerome: a Septuagintal text and another
attributed to Theodotion,’ with the peculiarity that the various
churches accepted the one by Theodotion which ultimately displaced

5 He lived in the first half of the Ist century cx (sees D. Barthélemy, Les Deoanciers
@Aquila, 148f{f.). ‘This identification within the overall theory set out by Barthélemy
requires an end to the traditional image of a 2nd century ce Theodotion and
explains why it has not been accepted unreservedly by 1.XX specialists; see the last
section of this chapter.

5 “Editiones ... Aquilae... Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionaci” (Jerome,
De vir. illustribus, 54).

7 Epiphanius, De Mens. ef Ponderibus, 17: t& Agiota toi of’ ovvgddvims seduxKev
(“he edited a text which largely agreed with the LXX”); Jerome, Jn Evel. 2:
“Septuaginta ct Theodotio . . . in plurimis locis concordant”; Jerome, Praef. in Psalmos:
“simplicitate sermonis a LXX interpretibus non discordat”.

® See Origen, Ep. ad Afr. 3ff; Jerome, Praef. ad Job in his Vulgate translation.
Even though it belongs to the group of “Writings” it is difficult to accept such Tib-
erties with the translation of this book into Greek. Hence, some scholars have
resorted to the hypothesis of a Hebrew Vorlage that is different from the Masoretic
text and shorter, see E. Hatch, “On Origen’s Revision of the LXX: Text of Job”,
Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxtord 1889 (= Amsterdam 1970), 21545. Even so, my
view is that the short text of the LXX translation of Job is due to the translator
himself and the translation techniques he used, see N. Fernandez Marcos, “The
Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job”, The Book of fob, ed. W. A. M. Beuken,
Leuven 1994, 251-66,

9 Jerome, Pragf: in Danielem: “Daniclem prophetam iuxta LXX. interpretes eccle-
siac non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione”; and de Dan-LXX dice in ¢. Rufinum
Il, 33: “hoc unum affirmare possum quod multum a veritate discordet et recto iudi-
cio repudiata sit”,

144 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

the LXX completely. Since in the Vatican ms. (4th century cr) for
Daniel, the Theodotionic text occurs instead of the LXX, whereas
Pap. 967 (2nd century ce) still contains the Septuagintal text, the
supplanting might have occurred in the second half of the 3rd cen-
tury ce."° And (2) on the other hand, there are Theodotionic read-
ings in documents that are much earlier than the historical Theodotion
as described by the sources.

Tt seems that Origen quotes the Theodotionic text of Daniel in
his writings out of respect for Church tradition and the same applics
to biblical quotations by Clement of Alexandria.'' However Theo-
dotionic readings occur not only in these writers but also in much
earlier writers such as Justin, Clement of Rome, Shepherd of Hermas,
Letter of Barnabas, Epistle to the Hebrews, Apocalypse of John
and the synoptic gospels.'* Now, as nearly all of these quotations are
limited to the book of Danicl, the problem of Proto-Theodotion
depends on the one hand upon the Theodotionic authenticity of this
recently disputed text’? and on the other upon the extent to which
Barthélemy’s theory is accepted when he identifies Theodotion as
the party head of the xoiye recension and so earlier than Aquila by
at least half a century.'* Only when these two presuppositions are
clarified can the problems that arise from these readings be inter-
preted correctly.

W. Hamm, Der Septuaginia-Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 1-2 nach dem Koiner Teil
des Papyrus 967. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 10, Bonn 1969; W. Hamm,
Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel. Kap. 3-4 nach dem Kélner Teil des Papyrus 967.
Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 21, Bonn 1977; A. Geissen, Der Septuaginta-
Text des Buches Daniel Kap. 5-12, zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco, sowie Esther kap.
1,4a~2,15. Papyrologische ‘Vexte und Abhandlungen 5, Bonn 1968. The LXX text
of Daniel was only known up to then from ms. 88 and the Syro-Hexaplaric ver-
sion, Publication of this papyrus also had the advantage of providing the only pre-
Hexaplaric known for Dan-LXX.

"Clement of Alexandria, Paed, TI, 8; TM, 3; Strom. I, 4, 21.

2 Some of these are: Mk. 14:62 = Dan. 7:13; Heb. 10:33 = Dan. 6:23; { Clem.
34:6 = Dan. 7:10; Hermas, Vis. IV, IL4 = Dan. 6:26; Justin, Dialogue with Tryphon
31,2-7 = Dan. 7; and it seems that in the Apocalypse of John there are more quo-
tations from Dan-@’ than from Dan-LXX, see P. Grelot, “Les versions grecques de
Daniel”, Bib 47 (1966), 381-402.

"A. Schmitt, Stamml der sogenannte “O’?-Text, especially pp. 110~12.

" See the fast scction of this chapter on the xo:tye revision and its relationship
to the historical Theodotion.

THEODOTION AND THE KAITE REVISION 145
b) Sources

At present it is quite difficult to identify the Theodotionic material,
and a new systematic analysis of all the sources is required in order
to verify these attributions. Traditionally, text -8’ of Danicl has been
used as it is the longest fragment that we have and to a large extent
the characteristics of this writer have been determined from this text.
However, A. Schmitt concludes his monograph with the emphatic
statement that 9’ of Danicl has no connection with Theodotion.'°
On the other hand, enough indications have been found to cause
us to mistrust the attribution of the sixth Hexaplaric column to
Theodotion. For the book of Psalms, Mercati has shown that it is
not the sixth column that represents Theodotion but the jfi/th. Ap-
parently, abridged copies of the Hexapla were in circulation which
omitted one of the columns or wrote it only in the form of mar-
ginal notes alongside another column.'® And in Dodekapropheton, if we
accept the rather disputed hypothesis of Barthélemy, readings pre-
ceded by the sighum 0’ do not reflect authentic Theodotion either,
but a late and eclectic recension.’ Thus is seems clear that in the
By section of Kings in Thackeray’ s terminology (= 2 Sam. 11:2-1
Kgs 2:11),'* the copyists of some manuscripts such as M, 7 and z of
Brooke—McLean, confused the sighum 0’ of Theodotion with the one
for Theodoret, attributing to him a series of proto-Lucianic readings
which are easily identifiable as they agree with readings of mss bocce,
representatives of the Lucianic recension in this section of Kings."
For all these views, the material that certainly comes from Theodotion
has been considerably reduced as a result of the discoveries and stud-
ies of recent years.

% A. Schmitt, Stammé der sogenannte “O’”-Text, p. 112: “Der sogenannte 9’-Text hat
nichts mit dem Ubersetzer zu tun, der uns durch seine griechische Ubersetzung
anderer alttestamentlicher Biicher unter der Sigel “@’” bekannt ist.” However, we
can note Barthélemy’s strong reaction to Schmitt’s thesis: “Je considére au contraire
le “Théodotion” de Daniel comme l’élément du groupe «atye qui a les plus des
litres 4 étre attribué au Théodotion historique,” see D. Barthélemy, “Prise de posi-
tion sur les autres communications du colloque de Los Angeles”, in D. Barthélemy,
Etudes d’histoire du texte de UAncien Testament, Fribourg~Gottingen 1978, 255-89, p. 267.

'© G, Mercati, Psalterti Hexapli Religuiae, IL Rome 1958, XUXf.

" Here the qutinta also represents the real Theodotion, head of the group of the
watye recension: “Goncluons seulement que la quinta du Dodékaprophéton a plus
de titres 4 étre une oeuvre originale de Théodotion que n’en posséde la recension
attribuée a cet auteur par les Hexaples,” see D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 260.

® See chapter 4, pp. 59-61.

1D, Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 91-139.

146 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

For the other books — and retaining the preceding nuances — we
continue to preserve him in patristic quotations and the marginal
glosses to the LXX. The largest fragments occur in Septuagintal
manuscripts, already incorporated with an asterisk into the LXX
from the time of Origen. The books preserving the longest Theo-
dotionic text are Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” The
Codex Marchialanus (Q.) transmits in the margin long quotations from
Theodotion for Jeremiah (Jer. 40[33]:14-26; 46[39]:4-13) lacking the
LXX text. This Theodotionic material of Jeremiah and of the book
of Job, incorporated in the LXOX with an asterisk, seems to combine
the main characteristics of the «katye recension.

c} Characteristics

We know little about his style except for its most significant feature,
which was to leave difficult Hebrew words transcribed (Gveppnvedotovc).
Field ists about ninety of them, relating chiefly to names of animals,
trees and plants, clothes, cloths and other things connected with the
cult;?! the books Isaiah, Ezekiel, Leviticus and Judges stand out.
However, difficulty is not always the reason for transcription, as

A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannie “8?”-Text, p. 112, quotes the longest Theodotionic
fragments preserved. It is copied here for the use of readers and to assist further
research:

Prov. 11:3; 14:4; 20:14-19; 21:5.

Job 12:9; 14:18-19; 15.10:26-27; 18:15-16; 20:3-4.20-23; 21:28-33; 22:29-30; 24:14~
8; 26:5-11; 29:19-20; 31:1-4; 33:28-29: 34:3-4, 28-33; 35:7-10; 36:5-9, 29-33;
3721-5, LL-L2; 3913-18.

13, 15; 8:18; 9:6; 11:7; 22:10-11; 24:19-20; 25:5; 27:1, 8; 30:27;
29-10; 54:9-10; 59:18.

er. 7:2; 10:5; 11:7; 16:5; 17:1-5; 23:36; 26(46):26; 28(51):45; 31(48):45;
34(27):5.15; 36(29):14; 37(90):9; 40(33):14; 45(38):12; 46(39):4; 47(40):4; 51(44):1 15
52:2.

Ez. 1:24; 7:14, 19; 10:14; 11:12; 13:5; 17:20; 26:17; 27:31; 32:19, 23; 33:27; 35:6,
1-15; 38:4,

This material has to be completed by the material belonging to the Kofye revi-
sion studied by D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, especially the material that
has found greater acceptance among scholars: the fragments of the Dodekapropheton
from Nahal Hever, sections By and y8 of Samuel—Kings, the sixth column of the
Hexapla when it really does transmit Theodotion and the quite of the Psalter. It
is also very likely that Lamentations, Song and Ruth were translated, not revised, by
members of the katye group.

2 F, Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XL~XLIL. Although perhaps this list
has to be shortened, taking into account that some of these readings are shared

THEODOTION AND THE KAITE REVISION 147

shown by the spelling of God’s name, #A (El) , in Mal. 2:11, although
it is inexplicable that the translator would not know it. In addition,
in Gen. 2:7 and 3:17 he places the transcription adaya after the
translation yf, which suggests scrupulous faithfulness to the text rather
than ignorance of the words. Since most of the realia on which the
transcriptions concentrate have no equivalent in Greck, it is possi-
ble that the reason for the transcription is to be found in Theodotion’s
disapproval of the choices made in the LX‘X translation.

It is usually said that his style takes a middle course between the
literalism of Aquila and the good sense of Symmachus, these being
the three translators closest to the LXX.” No trace of a double edi-
tion of Theodotion can be found, except for a suspect reading in
Ez. 1:4 and a corrupt section of Jerome in respect of the Hexapla to
Jer. 29:17. If the equation @ = xatye revision,” is confirmed — to the
extent that this occurs in the various books of the Greek Bible —
here need to be added the main characteristics noted by Barthélemy
for this recension” and those which later are to be discovered in

with Aquila, Symmachus or even the LXX and others are anonymous. This fea-
ture of the transcriptions should not be exaggerated as is shown by the fact that
in other passages, especially in Kings, where the LXX leaves the Hebrew term
transliterated, Theodotion translates it (sce ibid. XLII). Tov thinks that the judge-
ment on Theodotion based on Field is valid with respect to the transcriptions, but
it needs to be recast on the basis of new data, see E. Tov, “Transliterations of
Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament”, Textus 8 (1973),
78-92.
® An example is Gen. 1:23:
0 Gpyete tOv iyQbov
o énuxpateite év iyi
3 xetpodobe tobs ixBbac
@ natdsebete év toi ixBbor
3 ©’Connell has shown that the @’-material of Exodus belongs to the Katye revi-
sion, see K, G. O’Connell, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus, pp. 292-93.
This has also been confirmed for the Theodotionic material of Joshua by L. Green-
spoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua, 37981. Bodine identifies the xatye revi-
sion in the text transmitted by the family of the Vatican Codex (B) for the book of
Judges, whereas the sixth column of the Hexapla in that book contains a Hebraising
revision which he proposes to attribute to the traditional Theodotion of the 2nd
century cE, see W. R. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recenstonal Developments, 185-86.
4 1), Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 481¥. The chief ones are: (L) the removal
of &kaotoc, a masculine distributive, replacing it with dvjp, a calque translation of
Hebrew 7s; (2) the use of éxé&voBev plus genitive to translate mé‘al; (3) the etymo-
logical translation of nasab/ydsab by forms of the verb otmAow instead of Yorn; (4)
the specific distinction between kepativn for sf@r = ‘horn’ and odAmty€ for hasosra =
‘trumpe ) the removal of the historical present; (6) the atemporal use of the
Hebrew tion of existence ’éx = ob« &otww; (7) the translation of "anoké by tyd
eit and of “ni? by éya; (8) the translation of ligra’t by eig ovvernow instead of gig
dndvino, ete.

148 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

other books studied, which in any case indicate that the xotye revi-
sion was not the work of a single author. Instead it was a project
or tradition of non-uniform revisions made by a group of authors
which was to include a slight Hebraising revision in favour of the
proto-Masoretic text — without attaining the consistency apparent in
Aquila — and a desire to standardise and extend to various books
of the LXX certain translation choices already used by some trans-
lators such as the translator of Psalms. Hence the xatye revision has
certain peculiar characteristics in particular books. Barthélemy him-
self has accepted the criticism of some of the characteristics he
describes, such as the elimination of the historical present, and faced
with the proliferation of new characteristics in more recent studies,
has chosen to reduce the marks of this revision to four:

(1) translation of xatye by the Hebrew particle gam; (2) translation
of éy@ eiwt by “anoki before a verb in the first person; (3) general use
of évjp for all the occurrences of 7is; (4) translation of ’& by obd«
govt, without taking into account the agreement of tenses.”

Lastly, we note that there are still too many unknowns in con-
nection with Theodotionic attributions in the sources and too few
systematic studies on the material of this version for any more detail
on the characteristics of this translator, whose identity still continues
to be in the forefront of discussion.

d) Current Research and Future Prospects

One of the problems that has most polarised research on this trans-
lator has been the proto-Theodotionic problem, i.e. the proof of
Theodotionic readings earlier than the historical Theodotion. At the
close of the last century, G. Salmon had the intuition to foresee
problems which only recent work has proved true: “the question
with which we are really concerned is whether he (Theodotion) did
more than revise a previous translation different from the Chigi-
Septuagint”. He postulates the existence of an older translation, the
source not only of the Theodotionic quotations in the New Testament
and the Apostolic Fathers, but even the basis for the revision known

*® D. Barthélemy, “Prise de position sur les autres communications du colloque
de Los Angeles”, in D. Barthélemy, Etudes d'histoire du texte de VAncien Testament,
267-69.

* G, Salmon, A Historical Introduction, 599.

THEODOTION AND THE KAIFE REVISION 149

as Dan-@’. He compares 1 Ezra with Dan-LXX and concludes that
they are the work of the same author. As for the agreements of Bar.
1:15-18 with Dan-6’ 9:7-10 on the one hand and of Bar. 3:11-16
with Dan-0’ 9:15-18 on the other — when most critics date the book
of Baruch in the pre-Christian period”’ ~ he tends to think that there
was a version of Daniel that is closer to the 8’ text than to the LXX
in the Ist century cx and probably earlier.

A. Rahlfs, instead, trics to show that the two main readings men-
tioned in support of the theory of an Ur-Theodotion (Is. 25:8, cited
in 1 Cor. 15:54, and Zac. 12:10, cited in Jn 19:37) do not prove
that Paul and John depended on the text of Theodotion. Instead,
they can be explained in other ways.”

However, as a result of Barthélemy’s interpretation of the Greek
fragments of Nahal Hever as belonging to the xatye revision, the
problem of proto-Theodotion has become involved in a new process
which resolves most of these unknowns. This new interpretation
resolves the chronological contradictions that have led to a cul-de-
sac in studies in the first half of this century. One thing scems clear
today: the proto-Theodotion problem cannot be understood sepa-
rately from the xaiye revision. Barthélemy goes further, and by ele-
vating him to the head of that recension, leaves no room for a
historical Theodotion. He holds that Theodotion is earlier than Aquila
(in line with the sequence established by Irenaeus) and thus dates

7 E. Tov, The Book of Baruch: Edited, Reconstructed and Translated, Missoula, Mont.
1975, and CG. A. Moore, “Toward the Dating of the Book of Baruch”, CBQ 36
(1974), 312-20. Recently, E. Tov has analysed the passages from Baruch and Danicl-?
with the same readings and concludes that “the resemblances between Dan-Th and
Bar are merely superficial and have no bearing upon the proto-Theodotionic prob-
Jem”, see “TI he Relation between the Greck Versions of Baruch and Daniel”, Armenian
and Biblical Studies, ed. M. E. Stone, Jerusalem 1976, 27-34, p. 34.

28 A, Rahifs, “Uber Theodotion-Lesarten im Neue Testament und Aquila-Le-
sarten bei Justin”. According to Rahlfs, the quotation in Jn 19:37 Syovtor sig Ov
eGexévinoov = Zac. 12:10 Theodotion, as against émPAeyovtoa mpdg pe dv0" dv
KotapyYoavto, is not enough to show dependence, since that translation could have
come from the reading dagari = ‘they crossed’ in the Hebrew text, instead of ragddi =
‘they danced’, as read in the LXX, due to the frequent metathesis of d/r, And
in the case of Is. 25:8 kotend8n 6 Odvatog eig vikog = | Cor. 15:54 as against
xoténtev 6 Odvatos isxbouc, it proves that the reading Kotend0y in Marchalianus is
incorrect and that the Syro-Hexaplaric version reads kotémtev. However, his argu-
ment is not convincing, nor has it been accepted by Ziegler in the cri edition
of Isaiah, see J. Ziegler, Isaias. Septuaginia, Vetus Testamentum Graecum XIV, Gottingen
1939. Rahlfs is also against accepting an Ur-Aquila, It was the safest thing for a
loyal follower of de Lagarde to do before the hypothesis of the predecessors of
Aquila was known.

150 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

him to the first half of the Ist century cx.” The reverse sequence
maintained in the other ancient sources and accepted by tradition
was mistakenly imposed due to the positions of the three recent
translators in the Hexapla. In his review of O’Connell’s book, Bar-
thélemy again confirms his conclusions, and completely rejects the
proto-Theodotion problem as well as the information from Epiphanius
on the 2nd century cz Theodotion. For Barthélemy there is only
the Theodotion we know from Irenaeus who in future has to be
identified with the xoiye revision and dated in the Ist century cz.”

However, following Jellicoe, it can be asked whether it might not
be more prudent to accept the «aye recension as a first stage in the
Theodotionic revision (= proto-Theodotion) without removing from
the scene the later revision attributed to the historical Theodotion.
Like Lucian of Antioch, the traditional Theodotion is too well doc-
umented in ancient sources to allow him to disappear so quickly
from history.*' This applies especially when a new examination is
being demanded of all the sigla used in the margins of the manu-
scripts in order to resolve the problems of authorship, once it has
been proved that Origen did not exclusively reserve the sixth col-
umn of Hexapla for the revision known as Theodotion. It is true
that the extent and later features that must be attributed to Theodotion
of the 2nd century cE as against those of the Katye revision are not
clear. However, Theodotion’s existence and activity are too well doc-
umented ‘by tradition for him to be eliminated tout court.”

In any event, A. Schmitt’s thesis has not made it easy for us in
this complicated investigation to clarify the process that led to the
formation of the 6’-text of Daniel and its attribution to Theodotion.*
Tf the 0’-text of Daniel cannot be attributed to Theodotion by com-
parison with other material from the Greek Old Testament that is
prefixed with the siglum 0’, is all this material homogeneous and is
it all from Theodotion?

We have already seen how some of these sigla are not to be
trusted, for example those in section By of Kings, where it would

” D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 1444.

% D. Barthélemy in his review of the book by K, G. O’Connell, see Select
Bibliography.

*! §, Jellicoe, “Some Reflections on the xatye Recension”, V7 23, 1 (1973), 15-25,
p. 24,

*® See L. Greenspoon, “Theodotion”, p. 448.
3M. Schrott, Stammi der sogenannte “O?”-Text, 110-12.

THEODOTION AND THE KAITE REVISION 151
seem that the glossator of ms. j understood the siglum 0’ as an abbre-
viation of Theodotion and completed or retouched the readings attrib-
uted to him with the help of the biblical text of Theodoret, or of
an Antiochene or Lucianic text.

In the Twelve Prophets, according to Barthélemy, the supposed
Theodotion (8’) in spite of his relish for transcribing divine names,
plunders the other Hexaplaric versions, that is, depends upon them
and spurns the literalism already present in the «atye recension.**
Do we not rum the risk of sclecting as authentic the Theodotion
material preceded by the sighim @’ which fits our own theories? What
do we know of Theodotion’s literalism and translation techniques,
based only yesterday on the 0’-text of Daniel which we now know
is not from Thcodotion?

If Dan-@ does not belong to Theodotion, taking into account that
his quotations are extant in the New Testament and the Apostolic
Fathers, the question remains as to which process of revision, of those
known so far, does this text belong. For it is certain that already in
the Ist century az, alongside Dan-LXX, another Greek text was in
circulation that was closely related to it, later called 6’, and attributed
to Theodotion by the whole of Christian tradition. However, it is
also certain that, if Theodotion revised it, that revision was not very
thorough, since he did not complete, as he did in Job and Jeremiah,
the sections missing from the LXX but found in the Hebrew ¢extus
receptus, and it is difficult to assume that these sections were missing
from the Hebrew Vorlage in his time. As a result, we are not so dis-

tant as might seem from
problems raised by the dou

Montgomery’s position in respect of the
ble text of Daniel and proto-Theodotion.®

* D. Barthélemy, Les Deoanciers d’Aquila, 2531.

%® J. A, Montgomery, Daniel,

CG, 50: “Theodotion is the Hellenistic Onkelos

whose work was facilitated by the presence of a large amount of customary oral
translation of the Scriptures, possessed by him memorter. Of course such a theory
does not exclude the possibility of literary predecessors of the historical Theodotion.”

The provisional nature of the results gained up to now on the true identity of
Theodotion are clear from Barthélemy’s harsh critique of Schmitt’s thesis. After
going through each of Schmitt’s arguments against the authenticity of Danicl-@’,
Barthélemy concludes that Danicl-0’ exhibits characteristics that place it within the
xatyé group and that its vocabulary gives it the air of belonging to the family of
other witnesses in this group. Also, of all the revisers of the «oye group he is the
author with the most right to be identified as the historical 'Theodotion. See D. Bar-
thélemy, “Notes critiques sur quelques points Vhistoire du texte”, in D. Barthélemy,
Etudes d’histotre du texte de Vancien testament, Fribourg~Gattingen 1978, 289-303, p. 301.
If the author of Daniel-@’ and the other books of the Old Testament cannot be

152 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

Tt is also necessary to remove the debate over Theodotion and
the waiye revision from the book of Daniel in which it has become
polarised to excess. O. Munnich’s work has emphasised the close
connection of the xaiye group with the Septuagintal version of the
Psalms.** Barthélemy had already noted the relationship between
these two choices of translation."” For Munnich, the Greek Psalter
had exercised special influence on the xaiye group before the Common
Era, comparable to the influence of the translation of the Pentateuch
on later translations of other books in the LXX. This influence is
evident in the translation choices made by the revisers of the xatye
group, choices which were conditioned by literary and stylistic con-
cerns rather by particular theological or exegetical principles. Thus
Munnich keeps the xatye revision free from the geographical and
exegetical situation in which Barthélemy had set it, i.e. 1st century
ce Palestine and the Hillelite rabbinate.* And it cannot be forgot-
ten that the latest paleographic analysis of the scroll of the Twelve
Prophets from Nahal Hever dates it to the Ist century Boe, i.e. before
Hillel appeared.”

To summarise, the latest research on the antecedents of the Katye
revision has helped to refine some of Barthélemy’ s conclusions. As
a result, the xafye revision is described as a non-uniform group of
a Hebraising revision, or as a project marked by the desire to extend
to the various books of the LXX certain translation choices already
present in the translators of some books of the LXX such as Psalms.
As a result, it does not seem to be so tied to the exegetical rules of
the Palestinian rabbinate as Barthélemy claimed, and in terms of
dating, it can already be detected towards the close of the Ist cen-
tury BcE. As they depended more on literary influences than on doc-

the same person, the name Theodotion has to be reserved for the author of Danicl
and removed from the rest of the Old Testament, since for most of the books of
the Old Testament the sighum @ only means that it has been taken from the sixth
column of the Hexapla. However, as has been shown, this column does not always
contain Theodotion (ibid. p. 395).

3% ©. Munnich, “La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaige”, VT 33 (1983),
75-89, and Munnich, “Contribution a l'étude de la premiére révision de la Septante”,

37 “Tl me semble difficile d’étudier de prés Je groupe «aiye sans noter les liens
étroits qui le rattachent 4 la ‘Septante’ des Psaumes dont il prolonge trés souvent
les options dans le domains des correspondences hébreo-grecques, see D. Barthélemy,
“Prise de position sur les autres communications du colloque de Los Angeles”, p. 269.

“4 O. Munnich, “Contribution 4 l’étude de fa premiére révision de la Septante”,
pp. 217-18.

“ See L. Greenspoon, “Recensions, Revision, Rabbinics”, p. 164.

THEODOTION AND THE KAITE REVISION 153

trinal principles, the members of the group did not treat the text in
a systematic way. This explains the different criteria among the texts
attributed to Theodotion. And finally, the extent of the intervention
by the historical Theodotion on the material already revised by the
katye group continues to be an enigma. Perhaps the historical
Theodotion finished the light Hebraising revision of the xatye group
following the proto-Masoretic text, exactly as is evident from the
asterisked additions, which come from Theodotion, in books such as
Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the sixth Hexaplaric col-
umn of the book of Judges."

SeLect BrstiocRaPHy

Baars, W., “An Ancient Greek Fragment of Daniel 3, 51b-52 (With One plate)”.
Textus 6 (1968), 132-34.

Barthélemy, D., Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTS 10 (1963), especially pp. 144-56 and.
253-60.

Biberstein, K., Lukian und Theodotion im Josuabuch. Mit einem Beitrag zu Josuarollen von
Fhirbet Qumran, Munich 1994.

Bodine, W. R., “Kaige and Other Recensional Developments in the Greek ‘Text
of Judges”. BIOSCS 13 (1980), 45~57.
wy The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Development, Chico, Calif. 1980.

Busto Saiz, J. R., “El texto teodociénico de Daniel y la traduccién de Simaco”.
Sefarad 40. (1980), 41-55.

Cooper, C. M., “Theodotion’s Influence on the Alexandrian Text of Judges”. JBL
67 (1948), 63-68.

Cox, C. E., “(Job 32...) Origen’s Use of Theodotion in the Elihu Speeches”. The
Second ‘Century, A Journal of Early Christian Studies 3 (1983), 89-98.

Engel, H., Die Susanna-Erzahlung. Einleitung, Ubersetzung und Kommentar zum Septuaginta-
Text vnd zur Theodotion~Bearbeitung, Fribourg’Géttingen 1985.

Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1875. Prolegomena XX XVUI-XLIL.

Gil, L., “Theodotion”. EncBibl 6 (1965), 934-35.

Greenspoon, L., “Recensions, Revisions, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and
Early Developments in the Greek Traditions”. Textus 15 (1990), 153-67.

, “Theodotion’s Version”. ABD 6 (1992), 447-48.

Gwynn, J., “Theodotion”. DCB, 4, 970-79,

Jellicoe, 8., SMS, 83-94.

——— , “Some Reflections on the ‘kaige’ Recension”. VT 23 (1973), 15~25.

Montgomery, J. A., Daniel, ICC 1950.

Munnich, O., “Contribution a l'étude de Ja premiére révision de Ja Septante”.
ANRW I, 20, 1 (1987), 190-220.

» La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaige”. VT 33 (1983), 75-89.

oO Connell K. G., The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus, Harvard 1972 [Review

” “Tn particular, if the attribution of the greater part of the revision in evidence
in the Judges sixth column to second-century Theodotion is valid, then his own
work must be differentiated {rom prior revisional efforts and analyzed in its dis-
tinctiveness”, see W. R. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges, p. 196.

154 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

by D. Barthélemy in Bib 55 (1974), 91-93, and by E. Tov in JBL 93 (1974),
11415

Pazzini, M., “La trascrizione dell’ebraico nella versione di Teodozione”. SBFLA 41
(1991), 201-22,

Rahlfs, A., “Uber ‘Theodotion-Lesarten im Neuen Testament und Aquila-Lesarten
bei Justin”, ZNW 19-20 (1919-20), 182-99,

Saenz-Badillos, A., “El hebreo del s, If d.C. a la luz de las transcripciones griegas
de Aquila, Simmaco y Teodocién”. Sefarad 35 (1975), 107-30.

Salmon, G., A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the NT, London 1889,
594-606.

Schmitt, A., Sammi der sogenannte “O”-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? MSU IX,
Gottingen 1966.

Schiipphaus, J., “Das Verhiltnis von LXX- und Theodotion-Text in den apokryphen
Zusatzen zum Danielbuch”. ZAW 83 (1971), 49-72.

Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 42-49.

Tov, E., “Die griechische Bibeliibersetzungen”. ANRW IL, 20, 1 (1987), 121-189,
especially pp, 175-79,

.» “Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old

‘Testament: A Further Characteristic of the kaige- Th. Revision?”. Textus 8

(1973), 78-92.

Tov,

CHAPTER TEN

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS

Of the remaining versions we know from the Hexaplaric fragments
and some information from the Fathers, some are anonymous (quinta,
sexta, septima, 6 &Bpaiog, 0 obpoc, 1 copapertiKdy), others are attrib-
uted to particular people (Josephus, Ben La‘anah Ben Tilgah) but
only known through a mosaic of readings which makes difficult any
attempt to insert them into the history of the LXX. Jellicoe deals
with the quinta, sexta and septima in the chapter on the Hexapla,' as
it is the main channel through which its readings have been trans-
mitted. However, with Ficld and Swete, we prefer to set it in the
context of other versions different from the LXX as being the most
suitable, since Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion are also known
to us almost exclusively through the Hexapla.

As the fragments preserved are very sparse and so difficult to iden-
tify, further questions on whether they are true versions or only revi-
sions of the LXX are even more difficult; whether they cover the
whole Greek Bible or only some of its books; whether they come
from Jewish circles or instead already originated among Christians.
In spite of that, they comprise valuable documents which reflect
moments of intense philological activity around the Greek Bible, and
it cannot be excluded that one day a possible find will unexpectedly
reveal its true being. In the meantime, let is look at the data we
have on each.

a) The Quinta (E’)

In his Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 16, Eusebius provides the following
information:

So meticulous was Origen’s research on the divine Scriptures that he
even learned Hebrew and made his own the original Scriptures which
the Jews present with their own signs of the Hebrews and studied the

' S, Jellicoe, SMS, 118-24,

156 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

editions of other translators of the sacred Scriptures as well as the
LXX; and he found others still which differed, apart from the well-
known translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; he pub-
lished them tracking them down in I know not which hiding-places,
for they had been hidden since ancient times. Since he did not know
whose they were as they were hidden, he only noted that he had found
one in Nicopolis of Actium and the second in a similar place. In the
Hexapla of the psalms, after the four known editions, after placing to
the side not only the quinta but also the versions sexta and septima, of
one it is also indicated that it was found in Jericho in a jar in the
time of Antoninus, son of Severus”

Against this description by Eusebius, Epiphanius inverts the sequence,
stating that the quinta was found in Jericho ¢. 217 cE and the sexla
in Nicopolis under Severus Alexander (222-35 cx),? and adds that
the sexta was also found in a jar. Jerome mentions these three edi-
tions but does not add the details of their discovery.‘

Even though these reports read like fiction — resorting to the dis-
covery of a book hidden for a long time to endow it with more
authority — the account by Eusebius gives all the signs of having a
historical core. Origen was in Palestine in 217 ce and in Greece in
231; thus it is possible to connect these stays with the events reported.
As Mercati accepts, the witnesses favour the text of Euscbius since
it is found in all the manuscripts and is cited by many Fathers.’
Furthermore, this report occurs in a manuscript containing a catena

2 Eusebius, Karchengeschichle, VI, 16, 1-3 (ed. Schwartz): Toot SE glotiyeto 1
Opryéver tOv Oeiov ASyov daenepBouévy eléraots, @g Kal thy “EBpaiido. yAGttOv
expoeiv thc te nap toicg Tovdaiorg pepopévas mpwtotinove adtoic ‘EBpatov
stoizetoig ypagds «tha fSiov romjoaator dvryvedoort Te tog TOV etépav mapa,
tog EPSonjKovte. th tepic papers Epunvevkdtov &xBdcetg Kat tives étépag rapa,
TG xornpoGerpévors Epunvetag ivodhattoboas, thy “AxdAov Kal Loppdyou Kat
Geo8otivos, epevpeiv, Gg obk of8’ 6Gev ze Tvav pogdv tov mA avBavobcas
xpovov dviyveboas mponyoryev gig pas: bg” dv do thy Gbndomto., tivog Gp’ etev
odk siddc, abd toto pdvov éxeonptvato wo &po. Thy UEv ebpor év TH mpdg ‘Arctiorg
Nuxonddet, thy 88 év éxépo toidde tom: Ev ye iy toig “E€andoig tv PoApav
pete the emiofuovs téooupag Exddoeig ob pdévov néunmy, GAAG Koi fernv Kal
eBSounv napabeic é Eppnvetav, émi pig abc Geonpet@ror Gog év ‘leprxot ebpnuévng
év niB Kate tobs ypdvoug ‘Avtavivov tod viod Levipov. The translation of this
passage is mine.

* Epiphanius, De Mens. et Ponderibus, 18. ‘The information provided by Pseudo-
Athanasius, Synopsis Script. Sacrae, 77, seems to derive from Epiphanius since he has
the same sequence and attribution of these versions.

* Jerome, De vir. illustribus, 54: “quintam ct sextam ct septimam editionem, quas
etiam nos de cius bibliotheca habemus, miro labore repperit et cum ceteris edi-
tionibus comparavit”; see also In ep. ad "Titum and Jn Had. Il, 2; TH, 13.

* G. Mercati, “Sul testo ¢ sul senso di Eusebio H.E. VI, 16”.

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 157

of psalms and preserves Hexaplaric fragments. It is possible that it
goes back to Origen himself and from him passed to Eusebius.®

We do not know how long these versions were; nor is there proof
that any of them covered the whole Old Testament. However, read-
ings from the quinta have been found in the books of Kings,’ Job,
Psalms, Song and the Twelve Prophets. In the Pentateuch no com-
mentary mentions it. Ficld notes some remnants of the qguinta in Gen.
6:3; 34:15 and 35:19." However, they are scattered in the recent
critical edition by Wevers which attributes the reading of ms. 64 in
Gen. 34:15 (évvofoopev) to Symmachus and the other two are rejected
as glosses.” The longest fragments preserved for the quinta come from
the book of Psalms, once the last column of the Milan palimpsest
was identified as belonging to this version. H.-J. Venetz has recently
published a monograph on the quinta of the Psalms which will require
traditional views on this version to be modified. It is to be included
in the «xaiye group as the characteristics of that recension define it
best. Field’s opinion of its style as “omnium clegantissimus ... et cum
optimis Graecis suae actatis scriptoribus comparandus” can be con-
sidered today as no more than a brilliant generalisation."”

In the Twelve Prophets also, Barthélemy equates the quinia with
the «atye recension.'! However, this equation is only valid for the
authentic quinta which in Barthélemy’s opinion occurs exclusively in
Jerome’s quotations. The thirty-five readings transmitted by Barberinus
grace. 549 (= Rahlfs’ 86) do not represent the quinta but an edition
according to the Hebrews, which Cyril of Alexandria cites in his
commentary on the Twelve Prophets. The confusion in ms. 86 is

® G. Mercati, “D’alcuni frammenti esaplari”, 29. ‘The text in question runs as
follows: © &xSoaic fv edpov év NixomdAer th mpdc ‘Axtiotg: tk S& naporKetpever
adth got boo EvadAdooe: nap’ adthy- ¢? ExdSocig ebpeOeioa pete Kal GAA@v
PiPAiov ‘EBpaikav cai EAAnvicdy év tivi iO mept thy ‘Iepyy@ ev xpdvois ths
Bacretas ‘Avtwvivov tod viod Levfpov (“the guinta edition which | found in
Nicopolis which is next to Actium. Alongside it is everything which differs from it.
The sexta edition found together with other Hebrew and Greek books in a jar in
the vicinity of Jericho, in period of the reign of Antoninus, son of Severus”). This
text is transmitted by the forewords to calenae XV, XVI, XVIla and XVIITb of the
Karo-Lietzmann families for the Psalms, see R. Devreesse, Introduction a Vétude des
manuscrits grecs, Paris 1954, 107-108.

7 F.C. Burkitt, “The So-called Quinta of 4 Kings”.

* F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XLII.

° J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta I Genesis, Gottingen 1974, ad loc.

0 F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, and for the quinia of the Psalms, H. J.
Venetz, Die Quinta des Psalteriums, 51-72 and 194,

2), Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTS 10, 1963, 213M and 260.

158 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

due to the fact that the sighum e’ of the quinia is also the abbrevia-
tion for the &«Kdoor) xat& tobs ‘EBpotovg mentioned by Cyril.!?

If, then, this edition had been as widespread as Barthélemy would
wish (= kotye recension) it would not have been necessary to note,
as Origen does, that he found it in Nicopolis of Actium. Furthermore,
if we remove as spurious the thirty-five readings of ms. 86 from the
quinta of Twelve Prophets, what do we have left of the guinia in this
book to compare with that recension? Thirty-seven Greek words
from Jerome’s commentary, many of them re-translated, which do
not always match the passages in which we have remnants of the
xatye. This and other objections have been raised recently by Howard
against Barthélemy,'* concluding that the quinia and the katye recen-
sion in the Twelve Prophets are not the same but are at most related
to the same extent that katye, Justin, Codex Washingtonianus, the Coptic
versions and Aquila also have readings in common.

Burkitt had a similar problem, due to the scarcity of fragments,
in trying to identify the guinta in 2 Kings. It is known only from a
collection of readings discovered in the margin of the Syro-Hexapla
preceded by the siglum «. Taylor hazarded the conjecture that it was
a collection of variants placed in the margin of the Hexapla, a col-
lection also containing some significant readings from the authentic
LXX. Origen had rejected these readings in favour of the corre-
sponding translations by Aquila and Theodotion; their inclusion in
the right-hand margin of the Hexapla supposed an intermediate stage
between their presence in the text and their complete disappear-
ance.'* However, in a recent examination of the material from Kings,
Deboys concludes that the quinta of 2 Kings is a pre-Hexaplaric revi-
sion in favour of the proto-Masoretic text, and contrary to Barthélemy,
he holds that in some way it can be identified with the Antiochene
text of the ancient LXX.'5

At present, until a systematic study of all the known fragments of
the quinta is made, in the book of Psalms, it seems to belong to the
xatye recension and is therefore a recension of the LXX but with its
own personality, so that it cannot simply be defined as one of Aquila’s
predecessors.'®

'. G. Howard, “The Quinta of the Minor Prophets”.

™ F.C, Burkitt, “he So-called Quinta of 4 Kings”, 30.

" D. G. Deboys, “The Greek Text of 2 Kings”, doctoral dis
p. 181, and Deboys, “Quinta/E’ in Four Reigns”.

'© Venetz defines concisely the relationship between the quinta and Aquila by say-

, Oxford 1981,

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 159
b) The Sexta (Z”)

The ancient sources cited above are also valid for the sexta. Its his-
tory is closely linked to that of the quinia, as the passage from Eusebius
of Caesarea proves. Jerome speaks of the Jewish authors of versions
quinta and sexta.'’ Some have already suspected the Christian origin
of the sexta from Hab. 3:13 where it translates g&A0eg tod coor
tov Aadv cov bi Tnoodv tov yprotév cov (‘you went out to save
your people by means of Jesus, your Christ’).'* Undoubtedly there
is an unmistakable intention to translate the Hebrew preposition /’
by dé. However, as for the use of the singular instead of tods
yprotobs cov of the LXX, it is only being adjusted to the Hebrew
text like the readings of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in this
same passage.

We have fragments of the sexta in Psalms, Song, Ex. 7:9 and Job
5:7; 30:16. Jerome mentions it in Hab. 2:11 and 3:13.'°

We can say little about its style given the scant data available.
Field notes the strange reading veavixdtng of the sexta in Pss 9:1 and
109:3.% However, given that this word is a hapax in the dictionar-
ies, it must be considered an error for veavtétng, which is well attested
in Lampe’s lexicon of Patristic Greck.

The note in the prologue to some catenae of the psalms which we
mentioned above”! added in speaking of the quinta: 1 5& xoxpoxeipeva
adtiig éotw Soa évadAcoer rap’ adtiv (what is placed at its side is
everything that differs from it’). Fresh light has been thrown on this
ambiguous scholion with the publication of Hexaplaric fragments by
Mercati. In fact, in smaller letters there is a series of readings written

ing that both shared a common homeland (Palestine) but different mentalities: “Die
Quinta des Psalteriums wird nur dann geniigend gewiirdigt, wenn in ihr eine eigen-
sttindige Rezension des 0’-Textes gesehen wird. Bei aller Betonung der auffallenden
Ubereinstimmungen und der gemeinsamen Heimat der beiden Texte (e’ und 0)
darf doch ihre jeweilige grundsatzliche Andersartigkeit nicht ausser acht gelassen
werden,” see H. J. Venetz, Die Quinta des Psalteriums, 193. On p. 1 Venetz also holds
that the quinta of cach book requires a separate study to be identified. Since Field
considers it to be a unit, he describes it with the characteristics of the quinta of
Hosea transmitted by ms, 86 but which, as we have seen, is not authentic. Accordingly
his description is worthless.

"Adv. Rufinum, TL, 34.

8 J. Ziegler, Septuaginia XIH Duodecim prophetae, Gottingen 1967, 271.

“Reperi, exceptis quinque editionibus, id est, Aquilae, Symmachi, Septuaginta,
Theodotionis et quinta, in duodecim prophetis et duas alias editiones,” PL 25, 1296.
Undoubtedly this refers to the sexta and the seftima.

2% FE. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XLV.

* See note 6.

160 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

next to or beneath the last column of the palimpsest. Mercati’s con-
clusions concerning these readings are as follows:”

1. the readings written alongside or underneath those in the last

column belong to the sexta;

2. these readings mark its differences from the quinia, not from

the LXX;
3. as a result, in reconstructing the sexta, missing words must be
supplicd on the basis of the guinta, not the LXX.

What is surprising is how similar these variants, attributed by
Mercati to the sexta, are to readings from the LXX column, although
not always. Wevers provided evidence of this fact, expressing strong
reservations towards the identification proposed by Mercati and insist-
ing that many of these readings are really to be attributed to the
LXX and not the sexta.’ In the monograph mentioned, Venetz only
arrived at negative conclusions, defining the sexta as an unknown
among the Greek translations and recensions;”* in all likelihood it
does not represent the Katye group. Against Wevers, he holds instead
that there is no convincing proof for doubting that these marginal
readings from the Milan palimpsest do not belong to the sexta.

c) The Septima

According to Jerome, the sepfima existed cspecially in the books com-
posed in’ verse: Job, Psalms, Lamentations and Song of Songs.”

® G. Mercati, Psalterit Hexapli Reliquiae, TI, Rome 1958, XXCXIITEF

% J. W. Wevers, “Septuaginta-Forschungen seit 1954”, TR nf 33 (1968), 65.
According to Wevers most of the marginal readings belong to the text of the fifth
column (= LXX), even where it is not a good translation from Hebrew: “Nur
scheinbar hilft die Annahme weiter, dass die Sexta nur eine geringfiigige Revision
war, da alle Revisionen die Absicht hatten, die herrschende Textiiberlieferung zu
verbessern. Viele von den Randlesarten der Kol 5, die der LXX entsprechen (das
gilt ftir 70 Lesarten bei insgesamt 95), beruhen entweder auf cinem andern ‘Text,
oder sind freie Ubersetzungen, oder gehen auf Textmissverstindnisse zuriick, Ich
habe einige besonders auflallende Beispicle ausgewahlt, die mich davon iiberzeu-
gen, dass der Ursprung zumindest vieler dieser Lesarten LXX ist.” And a little fur-
ther on (p. 66): “In der ‘Tat ergibt sich aus 30,1 und 3 der Beweis dass die Varianten
iiberhaupt nichts mit der Sexfa zu tun haben.” To these reservations it should be
added that the siglum for the sexta (c’} can be confused in the manuscripts with the
abbreviation for the conjunction Kat.

4 HL J. Venetz, Die Quinta des Psalteriums, 107-19, 118, 128 and the conclusion
on p. 194: “Die Sexta des Psalteriums konnte nur negativ charakterisiert werden
und bleibt daher weiterhin eine grosse Unbekannte innerhalb der verschiedenen
Ubersetzungen und Rezensionen.”

*® Jerome, In ep. ad Titum: “nonnulli vero libri, et maxime hi qui apyd Hebraeos

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 161

However, neither he nor any other ancient commentator ever cites
a reading from the septima. Moreover, sometimes there is a reference
to eight columns in some books in the Hexapla (d«tooeAtdec), but
nine columns are never mentioned.”

Finally, in several manuscripts that contain the Greek Old Testament,
a note about the septima is usually inserted before Dodekapropheton, but
sometimes also before the Psalter, after Chronicles and elsewhere,
where it is identified with the edition by Lucian: épddpn te Exdootg
fq tod Gyiov AovKiavod tod peyaAov doxntod Kal udptvpos (‘seventh
edition, the one of the great Lucian, ascetic and martyr’).*” Faced
with the lack of data and the confusion with Lucian’s text, Mercati
considers the possibility that the supposed septima in the Psalter was
nothing else but the Septuagintal column transmitted separately, that
is, the current ecclesiastical text corrected only from exemplars judged
to be good.”

d) The Hebrew

Some 4th and 5th century Fathers attribute a certain number of
non-Septuagintal readings to 6 EBpatoc/1b EBpaixdv. This title seems
to denote three different contents in the Hexapla and scholia:

1. The second column of the Hexapla consisting of the translit-
eration of the Hebrew text into Greek letters (td &Bpaikdv ‘EAAnvixots
yocupaot). From among many examples that are preserved of these
transliterations in Hexaplaric contexts, Field derives certain general
rules on the transliteration of Hebrew consonants and vowels into
Greek.” The interest and problems that arise in connection with
the pronunciation of Hebrew as reflected in these readings will be

versu compositi sunt, tres alias editiones additas habent quam ‘quintam’ et ‘sextam’
et ‘septimam’ translationem vocant, auctoritatem sine nominibus interpretum con-
secutam”’,

* See chapter 13 on the composition and structure of the Hexapla.

* This belongs to a sort of rather gencral prologue which includes the s
sive deportations of the people of Israel throughout history, a work on the divine
names and a review of the seven editions of the Bible, see R. Devreesse, Introduction
4 (étude des manuscrits grecs, 118ff. See also, chapter 14, below, on the Lucianic recen-
sion. The identification of the septima as Lucian’s edition is to be found in Pseudo-
Athanasius, Synopsis Seripturae Sacrae, 77, in PG 28,436: &Bddpn xdAw wat tedeutate.
Epunveta. } tod &yiov AovKiavod (“finally, the scventh and last translation, by St
Lucian”).

* G. Mercati, Psalter Hexaplt reliquiae, XXXV.

* F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, LXXHT.

162 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

considered in more detail when discussing the Hexaplaric secunda.”

2. In other contexts it refers to the basic Hebrew text, that is to
the first Hexaplaric column, especially in the expressions of Eusebius
h &Bpaixh AéErc/H EPpoiixh dveyvaorc. In spite of the ambiguity of
these formulae, there are schoa that certainly refer to the Hebrew
text.3'! Similarly, the expressions “in Hebraeo”, “juxta Hebracos” of
Jerome’s commentarics always refer to the Hebrew text, the hebraica
veritas.

3. Lastly, another series of allusions refers unmistakably to a new
interpreter. His readings appear in the margins of manuscripts like
the other Hexaplaric variants, and the Fathers who cite him include
Eusebius of Emessa, Diodorus, Acacius, Didymus, Polychron, Olim-
piodorus, Chrysostom and Theodoret. Most of the fragments occur
in Genesis, Job and Ezckiel; but also in Exodus, Jeremiah, Isaiah
and Daniel. Very often he is cited together with another anonymous
translator, the Syrian, who also remains in the shade.”

Many hypotheses have been proposed on this translator, none of
them convincing.* It cannot refer to Aquila since there is a large
number of translations that depart from the Hebrew textus recepius,
and also in those passages where we have readings from Aquila and
from the Hebrew they do not agree. One could think perhaps of
those Hebrew teachers who served some Fathers of the Church, espe-
cially Origen and Jerome, to explain difficult passages of Scripture.”*
However, in G. Bardy’s opinion, Jerome attributed information taken
from other sources *- especially from Origen whom he tacitly copied —
and even his own hypotheses, to “a Hebrew”. Apart from that, he
is mentioned in the Hexapla as an actual writer, 6 eBpaioc. There

® See chapter 13.

5! For example, in the gloss to Psalms 69, 70, 143 and 144 which runs: odte zap&
1 EBpaig, obte napd toig KAAoIg ebptoKeton (“It is found neither in the Hebrew
nor in the others”).

3 J. W. Wevers, Septuaginia... L-V, Genesis—Deuteronomium, Gottingen 1974-91, in
the Hexaplaric apparatus, passim, and J. Ziegler, Sepluaginta XVI Ezechiel, Gottingen
1952, 65ff.

SK. Field, Onigenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, LXXVI.

* Jerome, Ad Am. 3,2; Jerome, Nak. 3,8: “Referebat mihi Hebraeus; audivi ab
Hebraeo; Hebraeus qui me in S. Scripturis eradivit,” etc.

% G. Bardy, “Saint Jéréme et ses maitres hébreux”, 164: “Les formules Memini
et Dicebat Hebraeus ne doivent donc pas nous faire illusion; une fois de plus, il faut
les interpréter avec une certaine latitude ... nous voulions simplement montrer qu'il
ne fallait pas toujours faire une entiére confiance 4 Saint Jéréme lorsqu’il dit avoir
recu telle ou telle legon de ses maitres hébreux.”

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 163

is no other solution than to accept him as a new translator who
translated at least some books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Job,
Ezckiel) into Greek and perhaps annotated others (there is some evi-
dence in Exodus and Deuteronomy;)* a translator whose origin still
remains unknown and whose translation techniques seem more like
those of Symmachus than of Aquila.

The new critical editions of the LXX not only reduce such attri-
butions, but they also recover new readings. Thus, against the four-
teen variants attributed by Field to the Hebrew for the book of
Genesis, no more than thirty-one can be read in the new edition by
Wevers,”” and some of these include complete verses. The same
applies to the book of Job.* A provisional sondage of the new read-
ings in Genesis allows the following results:

1. the considerable increase in witnesses has helped to clarify the

identity of this translator more and more;

2. his readings are transmitted especially by the catenary mss and
Procopius, an author connected with the origin of the catenae;

3. in most cases he is accompanied by the Syrian and has the
same reading;

4. both these translators know Hebrew well and Greek especially,
since in Gen. 38:29, for example, they reproduce the play on
words of the original.®

In the opinion of Wevers, the Hebrew and the Syrian as well as
the Samariticon refer to other translations; however to a large extent
their origin continues to be an enigma.”

On the possible palacographic confusion in the manuscripts of the Syro-
Hexaplaric version between the siglum ‘aim to denote 6 éBpaiog and the siglum
gamma (= oi ¥’) which denotes the three more recent translators, due to the simi-
larity of both letters in the Estrangelo script; see J. W. Wevers, Sepiuaginta... I,
1 Exodus, Gottingen 1991, 46.

7 J. W. Wevers, Sepiuaginta I Genesis, in the Hexaplaric apparatus.

% See J. Ziegler, Sepiuaginta XI, 4 lob, Gottingen 1982, p. 212 in the Hexaplaric
apparatus and passim.

* Gen. 38:29: 6 cup’ 6 éBp’ ti dvexdxy Eni ot Svcxoni for the figura etymologica
in Hebrew, ma parasta “aléka pares. On the translation of the figura elymologica in the
LXX, see N. Fernandez Marcos, Nombres propios y etimologias populares en la Septuaginta.
Sefarad 37 (1977), 239-61, especially pp. 251f How well “The Hebrew’ knew
Greek is shown by the use of dve@vpiactc (Gen. 19:28) and 16 petéppevov (Gen.
49:8).

© ‘Diese beziehen sich offensichtlich auf andere Ubersetzungen, doch ist deren
Herkunft grésstenteils noch ungeklart,” sce J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta 1 Genesis,
Gottingen 1974, 59.

164 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION
ce) The Syrian

Readings attributed to the Syrian (often in common with the Hebrew)
are mentioned by Melito (according to a catena on Gen. 22:13),
Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emessa, Policronio, Apollinar (for
the book of Daniel), Chrysostom (three times, twice apparently attrib-
uted incorrectly), Theodoret (for Jeremiah and Ezekiel), Procopius
and others.

Quotations from the Syrian occur in Genesis (some thirty times),
Exodus, 1 Kings, Psalms, Lameniations and the later prophetic writ-
ings. For Jeremiah about thirty readings are known;"' for Ezekiel
approximately fourteen; for Twelve Prophets six"? and for Isaiah
only three.'* We have no evidence from the remaining books.

The identity of the translator continues to remain unknown. In
his commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Theodore of Mopsuestia
accepts that he docs not know who he is: od88 yap éyvmotat péxpr
Tig THwepov, Sotig mote odtdg gotww (‘since until today who he might
be continues to be unknown’). Field surveys a series of passages
where his reading agrees with the Peshitta; however, they are variants
that do not prove any type of identification in the light of so many
differences. The following have been suggested as hypotheses:

1. It reproduces the readings of the Peshitta transmitted orally

(J. Perles).

2. He is a certain Sophronius, the Greek translator of some works
by Jerome and was to be known to posterity as “The Syrian’,
either because its author Jerome lived a long time in the soli-
tude of the borders of Syria or because the version by Soph-
ronius was greatly appreciated by the Syrians (Semler, Déderlein
and Eichhorn).

iegler, Sepluaginta XV Leremias, 106.
egler, Sepluaginta XVI Ezechiel, 65-66.
egler, Sepiuaginia XIII Duodecim Prophetae, 108.

#y, Ziegler, Septuaginta XIV Isaias, 113, n. 3.

* Tn Soph. 1, 6; see H. N. Sprenger, Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in XH
Prophetas, Wi baden 1977, 283.

“ F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, LXXIX: “Ex his exemplis, ni fal-
limur, certissime evincitur, Syrum nostrum anonymum cum versione Peschito (quae
dicitur} nihil commune habere.”

7 Jerome, De vir. illustribus, 134: “Sophronius vir apprime eruditus ... de Virginitate
quoque ad Eustochium, et vitam Hilarionis monachi, opuscula mea in graecum ele-
ganti sermone transtulit; Psalterium quoque et prophetas quos nos de Hebraco in
Latinum vertimus.”

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 165

However, against these hypotheses, two points can be raised. Contra
Perles, it is difficult to believe that the discrepancies with the Peshitta
were produced by corruption through oral transmission. As for iden-
tifying him as Sophronius, there is no mention im the quotation from
Jerome that this translator translated the book of Genesis, so that
we have about thirty readings of the Syrian. Although many pas-
sages are very close to Jerome’s Vulgate,” it is easier to explain these
affinities if Jerome used that translation during his stay in Syria than
the other way round. Furthermore, in another set of quotations,
there are clear disagreements between Jerome and the Syrian.”

Accordingly, all the indications are in agreement that he was a
native Syrian, of unknown name, who made a new translation from
Hebrew into Greek. This is Ficld’s hypothesis, confirmed by Rahlfs*®
and followed by J. Ziegler. In fact, in Ez. 8:16 he translates ’iilam
as xwykAig when the usual Greek word is xé-ykeAAov; so that these
two synonyms are only different in Greek. And in Gen. 39:2, accord-
ing to the testimony of Diodorus, he translates masliah as xotevo-
Sobpevoc, a synonym of énutvyyévev of the LXX, a synonym only
differentiated in Greek. If Diodorus had taken this reading from the
Syriac, he could have said this, since the two Greek words have only
one equivalent in Syriac. Finally, in Jer. 31(48):33 odkén oi Anvo-
Batodvtes KeAeboovct Aéyovtes ié, i& (“those treading the grapes shall
no longer intone this toast, saying: “Ya! Ya!’”) proclaims a Greek
rather than a Syriac origin of this translation.®!

Rahlfs, from a commentary by Theedoret of Cyr on Jgs. 12:6 in
which the Ephraimites have to pronounce the word sbbolet, on see-
ing how the LXX and the Syrian reproduce it, concludes that the
Syrian was forced to write in Greek. The text by Theodoret runs as
follows: a> yap 6 obpog Enot, tav &Arov tv GotaxDV cELBAX KOAOdVTOV,
oi tod “Egpaip gc twvog ovvnbeiag ceuBehd fheyov, todto ywookov
6 ‘legO&e Aéyew exéAevoe, Kal Siereyyouévovg dvfper (‘for as the
Syrian says, whereas the others called ear of corn oeyBAd, those

4 J. Ziegler, Septuaginta XVI Ezechiel, 66.

‘° Although the version into Greek by Sophronius of some of Jerome’s works
secms to have been lost, traces of it are perhaps to be found in some of the
Hexaplaric scholia preceded by the siglum 6 Activoc, such as the one in Dt. 34:7,
see J. W. Wevers, Sepluaginia II, 2 Deuteronomium, Gottingen 1977, p. 375.

3) A, Rahifs, “Quis sit 6 Zpoc?”

5! Since KeAevetw as ‘to propose a toast’ and KéAevopa as ‘song of those tread-
ing the grapes’ belong to refincd Greek, see F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae super-
sunt, LXOXXIL.

166 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

from Ephraim said ceuPeAd by a particular custom. Aware of this,
Jephthah ordered them to say it and killed the condemned’).
Nor was it possible to reproduce the difference between ceupAc&
and oeuBedd in Syriac (since both words are written 50b/). It was
difficult to be able to reproduce the difference between the Hebrew
sibilants S and s in Greek. Accordingly, instead of a free translation
as in the LXX, the Syrian uses a different vocalisation from Syriac
which can be expressed in the transliteration into Greek.
However, Sprenger criticises Rahlf’s argument since the difference
in sibilants would not have been noticed in Greek whether it trans-
lates from the Peshitta or whether directly from the Hebrew. Sprenger
suspects that the difference in Greek pronunciation had been estab-
lished by Theodoret himself, and as a result the problem of the
Syrian cannot be resolved with strictly philological arguments. From
the commentary by Theodore of Mopsucstia he concludes that he
was an unknown Syrian who translated the Hebrew text into Syriac
and whose translation was later displaced by the Peshitta.**
Mercati has helped to fix the date and the place from which this
author came. With good reason he criticises the attribution to Melito
of Sardis (d. 190) of the passage that mentions the Syrian in Genesis,
and reclaims it for Eusebius of Emessa, later than Melito by almost
a century and a half>> If Melito had known it, it is very strange
that Origen does not cite him either in the Hexapla or in his other
works. Mercati has shown that for the paragraph of the catena of
Karo and Lietzmann’s type II — the only fragment on which that attrib-
ution depends ~ the correct lemma is EvceBtov émoxénov “Eplons.
With this correction the result is that one of the authors who cite
it wrote before Constantine, making that emperor the terminus a quo
for this new translation.
Since all the authors who cite him come from Syria or neigh-
bouring countries, Didymus of Alexandria could not be a witness to

& See N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Séenz-Badillos, Theodoreli Cyrensis Quaestiones
in Octateuchum. Editio Critica, Madrid 1979, p. 303.

8 A. Rahlfs, “Quis sit 6 Zbpoc?”, 408-11. The diflerence between Eastern Syriac,
which preserves ancient Semitic a, and Western Syriac, where that vowel becomes
9, is known,

* HN. Sprenger, “Das Problem des ZYPOZ”.

% In 1882 A. von Harnack had already suspected the incorrect attribution of
this fragment and declared himself in favour of Eusebius of Emessa (see Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Leipzig, 1958, I,1, 249).

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 167

the Syrian, since his name would have been inserted in the catenae
due to confusion with the abbreviation for Diodorus.®

Finally, in a recent study Guinot maintains against Field and Rahlfs
that in Theodoret’s commentaries the Syrian is alluding to the Peshitta
or at least a Syriac version very close to the Peshitta.”

f) The Samariticon

In the rich channel of transmission that is the Hexapla, sometimes
schoha are found that allude to readings taken from the Samaritan
Pentateuch.* Some of these variants are found in the margins of
mss 85 and 130. Perhaps Origen included these Samaritan Hebrew
readings in the Hexapla, translating them into Greek. Possibly, the
scholion about two manuscripts for Num. 13:1, which alludes to that
work, goes back to Origen.”

However, as well as these readings we find throughout the Penta-
teuch others preceded by the title 15 oapap(e)tucdv/t cop’. According
to Field, there are forty-three such readings and four that are anony-
mous that belong to the same translator. Kohn surveys up to forty-
six."' Nearly all the readings agree with the Samaritan ‘Targum as
we know it through the defective editions we have.” This is explained
cither because both translate the same Hebrew text, ic. the Samaritan
Pentateuch, or because they reflect the same exegetical tradition or
theological viewpoint.

Kohn goes further than Field and concludes that the Samariticon

% G. Mereati, “A quale tempo risale ‘il Siro’?”. A. Védbus sees ‘the Syrian’ as
an earlier stage of the Peshitta, see A. Védbus, “Neus Licht auf das Problem des
6 Lbpoc”, 110-11.

57 J.-N. Guinot, “Qui est ‘le syrien’?”, 68.

58 On this text, see A. F. von Gall, Der hebritische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Giessen.
1918; F. Pérez Castro, Sefer Abisa’, Madrid 1959, and L. Girén Blanc, Pentateuco
Hebreo-Samaritano. Génesis, Madrid 1976.

8° The scholion runs as follows: xai tobtov jwnuoveter Mavdotig év toig xpatoig
tod Asvtepovopion & Kai abta éx tod tHv Lapapertév “EBpaixod peteBéAopev
KaTOAM ws tH tOv 0’ Epunvelg ci Ev 1 Aevtepovonia gepopévn (“and Moses men-
tions this in the first chapters of Deuteronomy; a thing which we have translated
from the Hebrew of the Samaritans, quoting in corresponding order the LXX ver-
sion of Deuteronomy”); see A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, The Old Testament in
Greek. Volume I. Part III: Numbers and Deuteronomy, Cambridge 1911, p. 454.

* $. Kohn, “Samareiticon und Septuaginta”.

® See J. R. Diaz, Targum Samaritano. EncBibl VI (1965), 881-84.

168 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

was a complete translation — like the one by Aquila, Symmachus or
Theodotion — of the Samaritan biblical text, not made directly from
the Hebrew but through the Targum.” Wevers reaches the same
conclusion for most of the readings in Leviticus under this siglum
transmitted by the catenary manuscripts and ms. M: they are trans-
lations of the Samaritan Targum.™

From the discovery of Pap. Giessen 13,19.22.26 — which contains
several fragments of this Greek translation ~ it has been proved that
the Samariticon was a complete translation of the Pentateuch and not
simply a series of glosses on the Samaritan Targum. These frag-
ments have been published by P. Glaue and A. Rahlfs and contain
Gen. 37:3-4, 8-9 and Deuteronomy 24~29 with many lacunae.® The
reading garizim instead of @bal (Dt. 27:4) was the key to detecting
its Samaritan origin. The fragments show the same close relation-
ship with the Samaritan Targum as the readings of the Samariticon
and undoubtedly belong to a complete translation of the Samaritan
Pentateuch. Thus it can be concluded ~ even though not one of the
passages from Deuteronomy contained in Pap. Giessen is preserved
in the Samariticon — that these Hexaplaric readings from the Samariticon
and this papyrus belong to the same translation. Rahlfs instead con-
siders Kohn’s hypothesis that this translation was made from the
Samaritan Targum to be much more dubious. Both the Samaritan
Targum and the Samariticon translate the Hebrew Pentateuch of the
Samaritans. And the frequent contacts between them have to be
explained either because one of the two has the other translation in
front of him, as well as the original, or else because both follow the
same exegetical tradition.

Apart from these fragments, in a Samaritan synagogue in Thessa-
lonica an inscription was found, partly in Hebrew with Samaritan
characters, which also contained the biblical text in Greek of Num.
6:22-27, the priestly blessing. The text of the mscription differs notice-

6$ §. Kohn, Samareiticon und LXX, 67, His other conclusions ~ to explain the agree-
ments between the LXX and the biblical text of the Samaritans as interpolations
from the Samariticon, and to attempt to see many other readings of the Samariticon
incorporated in the Septuagintal tradition — require much further revision in the
light of the new Hebrew texts that have been found in Qumran, some of which
are clearly proto-Samaritan.

& J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta Il, 2 Leviticus, Gottingen 1986, p. 31.

* P. Glaue and A. Rabhilfs, “Fragmente ciner griechischen Ubersetzung”, 56
and 62. :

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 169

ably from the LXOX and is faithful to the Samaritan Pentateuch,
which in this case is different from the Hebrew textus recepius. It is
thus one more link with the translation into Greek of the Samaritan
Pentateuch or Samariticon.®’ E. Tov has again examined the fragments
of Pap. Giessen and the inscription from Thessalonica and concludes
that they do not belong to the Samariticon. Instead, in both cases
these texts belong to the various revisions that the LXX translation
underwent — revisions which tended to reproduce the Hebrew text
more accurately — as it is closer typologically to Symmachus than
to Aquila." Even so, faced with the evidence of the variant apyap(1)Gy
in Dt. 27:4 he resorts to the hypothesis that the Papyrus (and cor-
respondingly the inscription) form part of the Samaritan revision of
the LXX carried out for the needs of the community.

Certainly it is not easy to decide whether Papyrus Giessen and
the inscription from Thessalonica belong to a new translation of the
Samaritan Pentateuch or they are simply a revision of the LXX
made by the Samaritan community.” Nevertheless, these texts point
to a Samaritan textual tradition that is also transmitted in Greek
and has to be connected with ancient information concerning that
tradition and with the Hexaplaric readings attributed to the Samariticon.

g) Josephus the Translator

This Josephus is only known from information published by J. Phe-
lipeau when discussing different Hexaplaric sigla in connection with
the Greek versions. He appears to be Theodoret of Cyr, although
there are no printed editions of his works.” After the exegesis under
the siglum for Lucian (Q), the following editorial note is inserted:
bnov Sé 16 t pete to @, ‘Iodvvov Twotnov (“where you find the yod
with the omega it is by John Joseph”).

In spite of the brevity of the note, this remark brings to mind the

6? B, Lifshitz and J. Schiby, “Une synagogue samaritaine 4 Thessalonique”, where
these fragments are published and analysed for the first time.

® E. Tov, “Pap. Giessen 13,19.22.26; A Revision of the LXX?”, especially p. 382,
and Tov, “Une inscription grecque d’origine samaritaine”.

® See B. Lifshitz, “Prolegomenon”, 74-75.

* The title of the book is: Oseas primus inter prophetas. Commentarius illustratus, auc-
tore Joanne Phelippaeo Societatis Jesu, Paris 1636. ‘he information was probably taken
from one of the codices that Cardinal Rochefoucauld gave him, see J. B. Kipper,
“Josipo (ou Josepo), tradutor grego”, p. 300, n. 4.

170 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

one-hundred marginal readings preceded by the siglum Iw’ trans-
mitted by ms. Barberinus 549 for Jeremiah.’' They are all preceded
by this abbreviation except for Jer. 38(31):22, where the reading is
accompanied by the following note:” &¢ éxi dAnBetag odtas ebpov
obtd Keipevov év th Taotrnov éxSdcer (“in fact, this is how I found
it written in the edition by Josephus”).

There is no doubt, therefore, that he is a new translator called
Josephus, and it is not a mere revision, since his text is completely
unlike the LXX. As we only have his readings for the book of
Jeremiah, we do not know whether his translation was limited to
that book or covered the whole Old Testament. Theodoret of Cyr
mentions him twice together with Aquila and Symmachus, attribut-
ing to each readings in the book of Joshua. Apparently, in these two
cases he is referring to our translator and not to the Jewish histo-
rian with the same name, Flavius Josephus.” According to Devreesse
he is also named several times in | Kings and the Psalms.” In three
passages from Jeremiah (32:9, 24 and 45:14) he appears in the com-
pany of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.

His translation techniques are rather free and periphrastic, and
given the agreement of his readings with the Vulgate, it is possible
that he knew Jerome.

The only overall study devoted to the translator Josephus is by
the Brazilian J. B. Kipper.” This author records a complete list of
schoha attributed to Josephus as well as the number of words and
proper names contained in each of them. Some, like those of Jer.
15:15-16 or 44:11-12 even cover two verses, with 26 and 28 words

" = 86 de Rahlfs, see J. Zicgler, Sepiuaginia... XV leremias, 106.

® Tt reads as follows: bt1 H5n elpyzouto wbptoc mapadoEov éni tig ylig- mapO(évoc)
Kvogopice yap GvOpmnov (“because the Lord already worked a marvel on the
earth; for a virgin would give birth to a man”).

See N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Sdenz-Badillos, Quaestiones in Octateuchum, 278,
16-18: thy 6& wit 6 'Akbhag otoAhv Hppnvevoev: 6 SE ‘Tdonmos yAavida: thy
SE ydooov, néCov xpvofv (“And Aquila translated the ‘light armour’ as ‘cloth-
ing’, but Josephus as ‘woollen clothing’ and the language as ‘amalgam of gold’”);
and on p. 279,7-8: 1 pévto1 yoioov @ tod AoyHvrac Suiyeipev "INoobs, konida
Apivevaev 6 “Idonnos, doobtas 5& Kai 6 Loypaxos (“However, Josephus trans-
lated as ‘shield’ the gaison with which Joshua aroused those who were ambushed,
as does Symmachus”),

™ R. Devreesse, Introduction a Wétude des manuscrits grecs, 130, n. 4: see 1 Kgs 12:10:
Libpo¢ Koi ‘ldonnog; and in mss Vat. 525 and 1223 on Ps. 48:1: 0’ 8 o’ V mAobotosg
Kai névyc. GAAog Onod. Devreesse identifies the ‘Jewish edition’ to which Cyril of
Alexandria refers (see sub quinia &kdoo1g Kath t&v éBpaiwv), as this edition by
Josephus, ibid. 130.

* J. B. Kipper, “Josipo (ou Josefo), tradutor grego”.

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 171

respectively. About ten fragments cover a complete verse and in total
there are thirty-four proper names, twenty personal names and four-
teen toponyms. The translation is outstanding for its freedom, its
variety of expressions, and its fondness for composite words, superla-
tives, paraphrase, ctc.”° It presupposes the Hebrew textus receplus as
the basis for the translation, sometimes against the LXX. However,
it also exhibits slight differences and some puzzling passages, an indi-
cation that the translator did not fully understand the original. There
are so many disagreements with the LXX that cannot be satisfac-
torily explained as a revision of that version, but are surely a com-
pletely distinct translation from Hebrew. His vocabulary is riddled
with rare terms that at best agree with those used in the later books
of the LXX and especially with Symmachus. The few fragments,
short as they are, contain a surprising number of hapax legomena as
against the LXX and the three more recent translators,” leading to
the suspicion that the criterion for preserving these fragments may
have been precisely the fact that they were rare and unusual.

The remarkable agreements with the Vulgate readings suggest the
possible influence that Jerome may have had on Josephus, through
Sophronius, the Greek translator of some of his works,” since Jerome
never mentions Josephus. However, there are so many differences
from the Vulgate (twenty-four, as against twelve agreements) that it
must be concluded either that Josephus and the Vulgate depend on
a common third source or else that, like Jerome, in his translation
Josephus felt the influence of Hebrew teachers or Jewish exegesis.

It is possible to think, as did Devreesse,” of a possible connection
between Josephus and the éxdoo1c Katt tv eBpaiwv that Cyril of
Alexandria speaks about, the text of which has the same strange sim-
ilarity with the Vulgate. However, it seems that this similarity has
to be explained by Cyril’s dependence, otherwise well attested, on
Jerome.”

Since Jerome does not cite Josephus, although he is known to Theo-
doret of Cyr (d. 458), Kipper is inclined to date him to the Sth cen-
tury and locate him most probably in Syria. However, I do not

oy, B. 1 eee “Josipo (ou Josefo), tradutor grego”, 303ff.
77 J. B. Kipper, “Josipo (ou Josefo), tradutor greg: 3-94.
® F, Field, Origents Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XCITV, and J. B. Kipper, “Josipo (ou
Josefo), tradutor grego”, 448.
2 * See note 73.
. B. Kipper, “Josipo (ou Josefo), tradutor grego”, 451-52, and H. Kerrigan,
& 6 Syl of Alexandria Interpreter of the Old Testament, Rome 1952, 254-67.

172 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

know whether it can be concluded from Jerome’s silence that he did
not know him. Perhaps he saw him as a competitor of his own time
or somewhat earlier, and ignored him intentionally, The contacts
with the Vulgate, the relationship of Josephus’ vocabulary with the
lexicon of Symmachus and of the late books of the LXX with the
lexicon of the Fathers of that region and with Theodoret’s quota-
tions argue in favour of Syria as the homeland of this translator.*!

Finally, S. Krauss wishes to see Ben La‘anah and Ben Tilgah as
two new translators of the Bible into Greek. He quotes them together
in many midrashic passages and in one passage from the Jerusalem
Talmud. Unfortunately, however, Krauss can only cite two readings
in support of his hypothesis.”

SeLect BrsuiocRaPpHy

Quinta, Sexta and Septima

Barthélemy, D., “Quinta ou version selon les Hébreux”. TZ 16 (1960), 34253.

Burkitt, F. C., “The So-called Quinta of 4 Kings”. PSBA 24 (1902), 216~19.

Deboys, D. G., “Quinta/E’ in Four Reigns”. Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985), 163-78.

Field, F., Origents Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1875, XLI-XLVI.

Howard, G. E., “he Quinta of the Minor Prophets: A First Century Septuagint
Text?”. Bib 55 (1974), 15-21.

Jellicoe, S., SMS, 118-24.

Mereati, G., “D’alcuni frammenti esaplari sulla Va e Vla edizione greca della
Bibbia”. ST 5 (1901), 28-46.

» “Sul testo ¢ sul senso di Eusebio H.E. VI, 16”, ST 5 (1901), 47-60.

Nestle, E., “Zu dem Bericht des Origenes iiber seine 5. und 6. Bibeliibersetzung”.
RAW 26 (1906), 168.

Venetz, H. J., Die Quinta des Psalteriums. Ein Beitrag zur Septuaginta und Hexaplaforschung,
Hildesheim 1974.

Hebrew, Syriac and the Samariticon

Bardy, G., “Saint Jeréme et ses maitres hébreux”. RBén 46 (1934), 145-64.
Bloch, J., “d Ebpog and the Peshitta’. Jewish Studies in Memory of 7. Abrahams, New
York 1927, 66-73.

* J. B. Kipper, “Josipo (ou Josefo), tradutor grego”, 393 and 454. The schohon
on Jer. 38(31): 22 (given in note 72: napQévog xvopophoe: yap GvOpamnov) has led
to the belicf that Josephus was a Christian, witness to an exegetical tradition that
saw Christ’s virgin birth prefigured in the text of Jeremiah. However, as Kipper
notes (thid., 453), we do not know whether in this case Josephus is dependent on
Jerome or whether both go back to the Jewish exegetical tradition which in the
3rd—2nd centuries Bor already interpreted the ‘ebnd of Is. 7:14 as mapBévog. This
means that it cannot be decided from the seholion whether Josephus was a Christian
or a Jew.

es < Krauss, “Two Hitherto Unknown Bible Versions in Greek”.

OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS 173

Field, F., Onigenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1875, LXXI-LXXXIV,

Glaue, P., and A. Rahlts, ‘ragmente einer gtiechischen Ubersetzung des sama-
ritanischen Pentateuchs”. MSU 1, 2 = NGWG6éu (1911), 2, 167- 00.

Guinot, J. N., L’exixése de Théodoret de Cyr, Paris 1995, 186-90.

; “Qui est ‘le Syrien’ dans les commentaires de Théodoret de Cyr?”. Studia
Patristica 25, ed, E. A. Livingstone, Leuven 1993, 60-71.

Kohn, S., “Samareitikon und LXX”, MGHT 38 (1894), 1-7; 49-67.

Lehmann, H. J., “Evidence of the Syriac Bible Translation in Greek Fathers of the
4th and 5th Centuries”. Studia Patristica 19, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Leuven 1989,
366-71.

Lifshitz, B., “Prolegomenon”. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Volume I, ed. J.-B. Frey,
New York 1975, 70-75.

Lifshitz, B., and J. Schiby, “Une synagogue samaritaine 4 Thessalonique”. RB 75
(1968), 368-78.

Mercati, G., “A quale tempo tisale il ‘Siro’?. Nota” *, Bib 26 (1945), I-11.

Perles, , “De Syro in Hexaplis commemoratione”. Melemata Peschiitoniana, Vratislava
1859, 49-51.
Pummer, R., “The Present State of Samaritan Studies”. JSS 22 (1977), 27-48.

Rahlfs, A., “Nachtrag. Ein weiteres Fragment der griechischen Ubersetzung des
samaritanischen Pentateuchs”. MSU I, 2 = NGWGatt (1911), 263-66.

—, “Quis sit 6 Lpoc?”. MSU T, 404-12 = NGWGott (1915), 420-28.

Romeny, B. T. H., “‘Quis sit 6 Ebpos" Revisited”. Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments,
ed. A. Salvesen, Tubingen 1998, 360-98.

Sprenger, H. N., “Das Problem des EYPOE”. Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in XH
Prophetas, ed. H.-N. Sprenger, Wiesbaden 1977, 79-83.

Tov, E., “Pap. Giessen 13,19.22.26: A Revision of the LXX?”. RB (1971), 355-84.

, “Une inscription grecque d'origine samaritaine trouvée 4 Thessalonique”.
RB 88 (1974), 394-99.

Vodbus, A., “Neues Licht auf das Problem des 6 Lépoc”. Peschitia und Targumim des
Pentateuchs, Stockholm 1958, 110-11.

Josephus, Ben La‘anah, Ben Tilgah

Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1875, XCIU-XCIV.

Kipper, J. B., “Josippus”. Paulys Realencycloptidie der classischen Altertumswissenschafl. Supp.
15, Munich 1978, 116-24.

; “Josipo (ou Josefo), tradutor grego quase desconhecido”. Revista di Cultura
Biblica 5 (1961), 298-307; 387-95; 446-56.

Krauss, S., “Two Hitherto Unknown Bible Versions in Greck”. BJRL 27 (1943),
97-105.

Ziegler, J., Septuaginta XV. leremias—Baruch~Threni—Epistula leremiae, Gottingen 1957,
106-108.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

JEWISH VERSIONS INTO MEDIAEVAL
AND MODERN GREEK

The influence of Greek on Jewish literature has been noted for a
long time through many linguistic loans that have been discovered
in the Targums (even the oldest such as Neophyti), in the Jerusalem
Talmud and in various Midrashim.!

Perles emphasises the influence of Byzantium in every sphere of
Jewish life, on the technical terms of medicine, administration, law
and even the liturgy through a series of lexical items that emerge
in rabbinic writings.? And Neubauer surveys a range of information
about Greek—Hebrew glossaries for the use of Caraites in the Middle
Ages. These glossaries show that Jews in Greek-speaking countries,
and perhaps in Rome, knew and used Greek during the Byzantine
period.? The Caraite writers, and especially Judah Hadassi from
Edessa in his “eskol ha-kofér (1148) continually use Greek words and
phrases.* On the other hand, in several manuscripts in the Bodleian
Library at Oxford there are hymns in Greek written in Hebrew
characters.’ Neubauer ends his survey by referring to the nced for
a complete Jewish—Greek lexicon from the earliest period of the
Mishnah, which would be very useful not only for the study of Greek
dialects (since being conservative by inclination the Jews would have

! S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwirter, especially 1, 221-37: Die rabbinische
Grécitit, and for Neophyti, sce A. Diez Macho, Ms Neophyti 1, F-V Genesis~Deuteronomium,
Madrid-Barcelona 1968~78.

2 J. Perles, “Jiidisch-byzantinische Beziehungen”, 572 and 580ff.

3 A. Neubauer, “On Non-Hebrew Languages Used by Jews”, 17ff. One of these
glossaries has been edited and studied by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (see Select
Bibliography). Palaeographically it can be dated to between the 6th and 7th cen-
turies CE.

1 A. Neubauer, “On Non-Hebrew Languages Used by Jews”, 20ff., and J. Perles,
“Jiidisch-byzantinische Beziehungen”, 575ff.

5 Le., written in Hebrew characters. See Numbers 2.501, 2.503, 2.504 and oth-
ers from A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and
in the College Libraries of Oxford, Oxford 1886-1906. Some hymns used in Corfu have
been published by Sp. Papageorgios in Abhandlungen des 5 internationalen Onientalisten
Gongresses, Berlin, 1882, 2258.

JEWISH VERSIONS 175

preserved ancient forms) but also for study of the LXX and the New
Testament, both works written or influenced by Jews.

In examining here the Jewish versions into medieval Greek and
modern Greek, I wish above all to fulfil one aim: to establish the
connection between the ancient versions of the Bible on the one
hand and to follow the path of tradition which acted as a bridge
until the production of the Constantinople Pentateuch on the other.

However, there are still two additional matters of interest, which
I only mention in the hope that other more qualified specialists will
discuss them:

1. the relationship of these versions with rabbinic Greck and the
influence they could have had on it;°

2. the definition of relevant parallels with other calque languages
such as Jewish-Spanish.’

a) Witnesses

In the margins of manuscript S. P. 51 (previously A. 147 inf) from
the Ambrosian Library in Milan, a fragmentary Octateuch from the
5th century, there is a series of notes in cursive made by a correc-
tor (F° in the edition by Brooke-McLean and Wevers) who was con-
versant with Jewish tradition. The text runs from Gen. 31:15 to Josh.
12:12; marginal readings continue throughout these passages. ‘These
readings merit systematic examination. A first sondage allows us to

® See H. B. Rosén, “Palestinian cow in Rabbinic Illustration”, JSS 8 (1963),
56-72; S. Sznol, “Ejemplos del griego rabinico a Ja luz del tesoro lexicografico det
DGE”, Emerita 57 (1989), 329-43; Sznol, “Addenda a Sifre-Numeros”, Kmerita 63
(1995), 117-28; Sznol, “Sefer ha Razim. Fl libro de fos secretos. Introduccién y comen-
tario al vocabulario griego”, Erytheia. Revista de estudios bizantinos y neogriegos, 10 (1989),
265-88.

7 See the publications by H. V. Sephiha and C, Sirat in the Select Bibliography,
and the following studies by M. Morreale on Romanced Bibles: M. Morreale,
“Apuntes bibliograficos para la iniciacién al estudio de las traducciones biblicas
medievales en castellano”, Sefarad 20 (1960), 66-109, and Morreale, “Vernacular
Scriptures in Spain”, The Cambridge History of the Bible 2, Cambridge 1969, 465-92.

8 For a description of this important uncial, see H. B. Swete, An Introduction to
the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 135--36; S. Jellicoe, SMS, 192-93;
A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, Berlin 1914,
p. 125; and J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta... I Genesis, Gottingen 1974, 12; Wevers,
Septuaginta... H, 1 Exodus, 1991, 7-8; Wevers, Septuaginta... HI, 2 Leviticus, 1986,
78; Wevers, Septuaginta... IH, 1 Numeri, 1982, 7~8; Wevers, Septuaginta... IH, 2
Deuteronomium, 1977, 7-8.

176 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

conclude that the author of these corrections, written in minuscule
script, is definitely working within the tradition of the Jewish ver-
sions, and there is remarkable agreement with the vocabulary of the
Greek text of the Constantinople Pentateuch, even though it reflects
a less developed stage of the language. Although the glosses remain
anonymous, in a passage from Genesis, F identifies its author as td
iovdaixdv.? Also, ms. i (= 56 of Rahlfs), which has several Hexaplaric
readings, many of them agreeing with F’, on two occasions identifies
him by this title."

Kahle claimed that these remnants of Hexaplaric material were
taken from ancient translators of Jewish origin from the pre-Christian
period or from the Ist century cr.'! This is untenable since the read-
ings themselves, although very uneven, indicate their late origin. In
my view they are post-Hexaplaric and come from Jewish transla-
tions that circulated in the Byzantine period leaving traces in the
margins of some manuscripts such as M, F, i.

As has been confirmed by recent editions and studies of Exodus,
this material is an indication that in the post-Hexaplaric period the
activity of translation into Greck continued, and that most of these
translations are Jewish in origin. Most of these anonymous readings
belong within the Jewish tradition of translation and, what is more
interesting, they have surprising agreements with the translation into
modern Greek of the Constantinople Pentateuch, although they obvi-
ously represent an older stage of the language: of the 488 readings
that F° preserves in the book of Exodus, it shares 100 with the
Constantinople Pentateuch.'? Another later corrector of the same
manuscript made a new Hebraising translation of Ex. 36:3~39:19 (=
F*), closely connected with the text of the Complutensian. According
to Wevers, one of the sources of the Complutensian had to share

® J. W. Wevers, Sepiuaginta... I Genesis, Gottingen 1974 in the second critical
apparatus on Gen. 47:31 t lov8 émi mpookegd(Acov tic) KAivng obtod F’. Other
approximations to the Hebrew can be seen in Ex. 6:3: év ioyvp ixavé) to trans-
late Hebrew 6°@ Jadday; Ex. 15:1, 11, etc., see J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta... H,
7 Fxodus, Géttingen 1991, in the Hexaplaric apparatus. :

See the editions by Wevers quoted above in Gen. 40:9: 1d iov8’ tv KAN evav™
56; Gen, 43:11: 16 tov’ dubydoAu 56. It is still mentioned in Ex. 16:31 in the

corrections in cursive in the same manuscript F: 1 iov8’... xopravdpoKdxKou I.
" P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 1959, 245, n. 1. (For Gen, 43:2 there read
Gen. 43:11).

"® See J. W. Wevers, Sepluaginia... If, 1 Exodus, 43-44, and Wevers, “A Secondary
Text in Codex Ambrosianus of the Greek Exodus”.

JEWISH VERSIONS 177

in the stemma a text on which F* also depended. D. Frankel reaches
the same conclusion in a well-documented article.'*

In 1924 Blondheim published, in Greek transliteration, some frag-
ments containing Qoh. 2:13-23 written in Hebrew characters. They
come from file H.1 of the Taylor-Schechter collection in the Cam-
bridge University Library.!° At the beginning of cach verse one word
or the first two words of the Hebrew text are inserted, followed by
the Greek translation as a pedagogical aid to following the text in
both languages. Blondhcim docs not give these fragments a precise
date, although from the chronological order in which he arranges
them he indicates that they are later than the 12th century.'® However,
judging from the stage of language they reflect, I would put them
between 600 and 1100."

The interlinear translation into modern Greek with Hebrew char-
acters of the book of Jonah was published by Hesseling in 1901.'*
Tt is found in two manuscripts, one from the Bodleian of Oxford

‘8 J. W. Wevers, “A Secondary ‘Text in Codex Ambrosianus of the Greck Genesis”,
p. 48: “This must mean that one of the sources of Compl must have shared in its
stemmata a parent text which also lay in the textual ancestry of F". That source
is not one of the extant identified sources of Cenp for the Pentateuch, viz. ms
108 and some of the / mss, but one no longer extant”

" 2), Frankel, “Die Quelien der asterisierten Zusiitze im zweiten Tabernakelbericht
Exodus 35-40”, especially 174-86, p. 176: “Weil nicht villig ausgeschlossen. werden
kann, dass dic Bearbeiter der Complutensis sei es den Codex scl 2
wahrscheinlich jiidische ‘Tradition, auf die sich der Text von P griindet, kannten.

® D. S. Blondheim, “Echos du judéo- -hellénisme”, 3 and 14. See now N. R. M.
de Lange, “lwo.Genizah Fragments in Hebrew and Greek”, pp. 6475. De Lange
re-edits, transcribes and comments on this text of Qoheleth. ;

" With the greatest reserve and in spite of the difficulty of any transcribed text
as reflecting the corresponding phonetics. On the other hand the fragments are
very small and we know very litte about the language spoken in this period, sce
R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 59~72, especially p. 70. Not all the prepo-
sitions are constructed with the accusative, a move that would take place in the
following period (Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 86), but only obv {a con-
struction inherited from Aquila) and év. However we do have dnd cogiag (2:21),
anovKdta toh hAfov (2:17, 18, 19, 20), dmABév pov (2:18) etc. In addition note,
as Psaltes remarks, that “die Anfinge der ngr. Sprache nicht um 1000 n. Ch., wie
Psicari meinte, sondern, wie Hatzidakis und nach ihm K. Dieterich gezeigt haben,
schon im Anfang des Mittelalters (500 n. Ch.) und, wie die Papyri zeigen, noch
friiher zu suchen sind”, see St. B. Psaltes, Grammatik der Byzantinischen Chroniken,
Gottingen 1913, 1974 reprint, VITE.

BDC. Hesseling, “Le livre de Jonas”, 213-17.

178 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

and the other from Bologna. It is so incredibly literal that the trans-

“lator even uses the same gender as the Hebrew noun although it is
different in Greck (e.g. Gvepog peyaAn in 1:4 because the Hebrew
word rijah is feminine). Hesseling dates it to the 13th century’? and
Neubauer to the 12th.” Perhaps the date has to be set back even
further if we take into account the linguistic phenomena reflected,
even though the difficulty of reproducing the phonemes peculiar to
any text written with the characters of another language is com-
pounded by the linguistic inconsistencies and the conservatism of a
literary text that already had a history in Greek. As is also the case
in the Constantinople Pentateuch, it cannot be reduced to a uni-
form linguistic system; instead, different phenomena coexist.”! Sporadic
contacts with one of “the three” (Aquila, Symmachus and ‘Theodotion)
are explained as it is a word-for-word translation from Hebrew.
Instead the agreements with the LXCX in the lexicon and in some
constructions — sometimes against “the three” — are so striking, that
it is necessary to modify Hesseling’s statement, that it is a completely
different version from the LXX.”

To this material must be added other Greek fragments from the
deposits in the Cairo Genizah: biblical glosses in Greek, fragments
from Judges with glosses in Greck, fragments of a commentary on
Ezekiel with Greek glosses, etc.”

Graecus Venelus: Better known is the version of the Pentateuch together
with the books of Ruth, Proverbs, Song, Qoheleth and Lamentations

D. C. Hesseling, “Le livre de Jonas”, 210.

* A, Neubauer, “On Non-Hebrew Languages Used by Jews”, 17. According to
Neubauer it is written in the dialect of the Island of Corfu and the text was read
in the synagogue as the Haflaré of yém Kippiir.

4 In spite of these qualifications, note that mé&>¢ has not yet been completely
replaced by 6Aog (Jon. 2:4); that not all the prepositions are constructed with the
accusative; that not every final -v bas been dropped, etc, Do these facts reflect the
stage of the language in which it was translated or are they linguistic archaisms
which belong naturally to a conservative sacred language?

2 1). GC. Hesseling, “Le livre de Jonas”, 211: “On constatera que cette version
est absolument indépendante de celle des Septante.” As I understand it, the trans-
lator had the LXX in front of him not only from the wording which is very close
to it but above all from the translation of “land/earth” as Gepé (1:9 and 2:11) in
agreement with Hebrew yabbdsd and the use of xoAoxbvOn (4:6) — the same word
as in the LXX ~ as against xtkedv of Aquila~Theodotion or xioodg of Symmachus.

* See N. R. M. de Lange, “Greek and Byzantine Fragments in the Cairo
Genizah”, and de Lange, Hebrew—Greek Genizah Fragments and their Bearing on
the Culture of Byzantine Jewry”.

JEWISH VERSIONS 179

transmitted by Cod. Gr. VII of the Markan library of Venice (14th
century). It was published twice in the 18th century,** but the most
recent edition is by O. Gebhardt, published in Leipzig (1875), together
with a long introduction.* The translation was made directly from
the Masoretic text but with the occasional help of other Greek ver-
sions: LXX, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. All the same, the
chief instigator of this translation was D. Kimhi, who flourished at
the beginning of the 13th century. Almost all the peculiar interpre-
tations of the Graecus Venetus originate in Kimhi’s sefér ha-Sorasim. The
author’s faithfulness to the original is evident in his efforts to trans-
late it into Attic Greek, keeping the Doric dialect for the passages
of the book of Daniel composed in Aramaic. According to Delitzsch,
the author was a Jew, given that in Ex. 23:20 ha-maqém (a circum-
locution to avoid God’s name in late Judaism) is used to translate
wov évtwrtiv, ic. Yahweh.** Mercati instead thinks that this version
formed part of an Old Testament in two languages (or possibly
three): Hebrew, Greek (and Latin). The peculiar nature of the man-
uscript ~ its unusual format of 28 x 10 cm, the Semitic sequence
of the folios and the lines of unequal length (some very full and oth-
ers extremely short) ~ led him to conclude that this version must
have been published in parallel with the Hebrew text. In fact, there
is now positive evidence of an attempt of this nature in the second
half of the 14th century: a Hebrew~Greek~Latin Bible with a new
version of the New Testament in Hebrew was composed in part by
a Basilian monk from the monastery of the Stoudios in Constantinople,
a bishop in southern Italy and later in Greece, a papal legate in the
East for the unification of the churches, called Simon Atumanos.”’

The characteristics of the introduction have been carefully analysed
by Delitzsch in the introduction to the Gebhardt edition.” However,
we cannot use it as an example of a particular stage in the history
of the Greek language since it tries to restore classical forms artificially,
including the optative.

™* See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 56-58, where some
fragments of this version are reproduced.

* The complete title is: Graecus-Venetus. Pentateuch Proverbiorum Ruth Cantici Ecclesiasticae
Threnorum Danielis versio graeca ex unico bibliothecae S. Marci Venetae codice nune primum uno
volumine comprehensam alque apparalu critico et phalologico instructam edidit O. G. Praefatus est
Fr. Delitzsch, Leipzig 1875.

6 See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 57.
27 See G. Mercati, “Chi sia Pautore della nuova versione”, 516.
°* Graecus-Venetus. Pentateuchi Proverbiorum Ruth, pp. XLVI.

180 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

The manuscript Vat. Graecus 343 contains a translation of the Psalter
* with the odes (des. at the end of the ninth ode) which for compar-
ative linguistics has the advantage of being dated. At the end it bears
the date 22 April 1450.” The language it reproduces lies at a stage
halfway between the interlinear translation of Jonah and the Con-
stantinople Pentateuch. It is possible that it was translated into modern
Greek from the LXX, for it includes odes such as 7, 8 and 9 which
have no Hebrew Vorlage. Also, this last ode follows the LXX com-
pletely, except for constructions no longer in use as they were archaic
in the 15th century. Final -v has not yet disappeared completely,
but the dative is always replaced by another case, the pronouns have
initial apheresis and 6A0¢ has completely displaced mé&c.*° However,
as happens in most such cases where the authors are well educated,
they do not consistently reproduce all the linguistic phenomena of
the period in question, but include archaisms and learned words
from biblical tradition.

Undoubtedly, though, the most typical translation into modern Greek
written in Hebrew characters is the Constantinople Pentateuch, pub-
lished in that city in 1547, the first printed work in Greck in a
Greek-speaking country.*' Several scholars, such as J. C. Wolff,
M. Emile Legrand and L. Belléli himself; have tried to transcribe
the first chapters of Genesis of this version. The complete transcrip-
tion of the work in Greek, edited together with a long linguistic
introduction and provided with a glossary, was by Hesscling.*
Besides the enormous interest that it holds for the history of exe-
gesis, from the linguistic point of view it is a precious document in
vulgar Greek at a strategic point in its history; a few years later vul-
gar Greek would start to be contaminated and ultimately replaced

** This manuscript is described in R. Devreesse, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae
Codices Vaticani Graeci. Tomus Il: Codices 330-603, Vatican City 1937, p. 18.

°% See R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 73{T.

* Tt is a polyglot Pentateuch in Hebrew, Greek in Hebrew characters and Jewish-
Spanish or Ladino, also in Hebrew characters. ‘The version in Jewish-Spanish is the
work of Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 to become refugees in Turkey.
The book of Deuteronomy has been edited recently by H. V. Sephiha (see Select
Bibliography). Before this Pentateuch, the version into Modern Greek of the book
of Psalms had already been made by Agapius, a monk on the island of Crete, based
on the LXX. It was printed in Venice in 1543. See A. G. Masch, Bibliotheca Sacra
If, vol. H, sect. H and R. Gottheil, “Bible Translations”, in ZE III, 188.

® See the two articles by L. Belléli listed in the Select Bibliography.

8 D.C. Hesseling, Les cing livres de la Lot.

JEWISH VERSIONS 181

by Turkish, the language with which it was in contact. This Greek
has scarcely any foreign influences apart from Latin, Some of its most
important characteristics as described by Hesseling are as follows.**
1. The relative pronoun 6c is indeclinable, either from the influence
of Hebrew ‘aser or due to the language itself evolving (Gen. 1:7 t&
vepa 6g a&xonévov).
2. The Hebrew infinitive construct is expressed by means of ver-
bal nouns in -o¢ (Ex. 19:5 dcovopd vi. dxobcete).
3. Proper names are not Hellenised, as frequently happens in the
LXX, but transliterated.
4. The author also transliterates a series of common names of
trees, dishes, animals, precious stones and others that could easily
have been translated into Greek.
5. The lexicographical part is of the greatest interest because it
contains ways of renewing the language by resorting to ingenious
translation techniques: for example, to translate two Hebrew syn-

onyms or two different meanings of the same word, it attributes very
different meanings to two Greek words of dissimilar form but almost
identical meaning: yepiGw = “to fill”; yeuovo = “to fill the hands”, “to
consecrate as priest”, according to the meaning of the same Hebrew
root in the piel, Sayxdéva = “to bite” (Num. 21:6.8-9); dayckava =
“to lend on interest” (Dt. 23:20), one of the meanings derived from
same Hebrew verb nasak.

6. Some terms are Slavonic in origin, others are Rumanian and
many are Latin, such as xéyKeAAov, Kappodya,, Kdotpov, nOpta, onitt,
otpata.

Phonetics, as far as they can be reconstructed from being imper-
fectly reflected in the Hebrew characters, show the prothetic use of
@ as in émovayds (Gen. 2:18); proleptic assimilation of € instead of
a/o (é5eppdc, évémov) and the replacement of ¢ with 1 in an atonic
syllable (int).> Also, epenthesis of 1 as in motuwio (Gen. 4:2) and the
dropping of interconsonantal yodh. The vowels ¢ and 1 become yodh
before vowels as Evvea (Gen. 5:27) except in combinations that form a
diphthong. Some cases of metathesis - common in modern Greek —
such as xevéte instead of etnate. The yodh is dropped in most cases

# D.C. Hesseling, Les cing livres de la Loi, VILL, and N. Fernandez Marcos, “Et
Pentateuco griego de Constantinopla”, 193-97.

% "This is already to be found in the translation of the book of Jonah at least
three centuries earlier and is probably Cretan in origin.

182 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

after «x, xy and very often after A, v, y. Final -v is only preserved in
* the third persons singular and plural ending in -ev, -ov, -yv, -ov,
-ovv, and in the genitive plural of the article and the noun. However,
it is never dropped in m&v and in the pronominal forms épév, éoév,
obtév. In the other cases complete irregularity prevails: the same
word occurs with and without -v, and at other times there is an -v
for no linguistic reason.*°

The article is connected to the main word, creating forms such as
fic, vordvac. The noun is reduced or regularised into a single de-
clension, the same as for the article. There are very many indeclin-
able nouns such as &vip, nav, n&oa and many neuter forms in -pa.

To summarise, the linguistic phenomena presented by the Constan-
tinople Pentateuch cannot be reduced to a single system nor is it easy
to describe the stage of language it reproduces. It is a monument to
common language at the close of the Middle Ages, but is much closer
to the southern dialects than to the northern.”

Hesseling’s edition was harshly criticised by Belléli, especially for
the scarcely uniform system of transcription and the mistakes in punc-
tuation.® Other criticisms are more debatable and Hesseling defends
himself against them. I am inclined to think that expressions such
as govt) oivata are due to the influence of Hebrew and do not
mean that the genitive plural of nouns fell into disuse in the mid-
16th century. Similar cases of a breakdown of Greek morphology
due to excessive literalism can be found in Aquila.

Finally, to facilitate the teaching of Hebrew, in 1756 Moses ben
Eliyah Fabian published a Greek version of Job in Constantinople.*
The edition of a version into modern Greck written in Hebrew char-
acters of the Aramaic sections of the Bible is due to A. Danon in
1914. He presented this version to Byzantine scholars as a further
stage in the development of modern Greek. It had been made by

3% R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 79.

37 For a summary of the elements marking the shift to Modern Greek, see St.
B. Psaltes, Grammatik der Byzantinischen Chroniken, VILL, n. 1, and R. Browning, Medieval
and Modern Greek, 73.

% See L. Belléli’s review of D. C. Hesseling, Les cing ores de la Loi, in REF 35
(1897), 135-55, and Hesseling’s reply in the same number, pp. 314-18. Apparently in
the edition of this text Hesseling anticipated the same text that Belléli was preparing.

* L. Bellcl, “Deux versions peu connues du Pentateuque”, 250.

JEWISH VERSIONS 183

the Caraite Elias Afeda Beghi in 1627, who added a Hebrew—Greck
glossary for the more difficult expressions of the Bible.

b) Relationship to Earlier Jewish Versions

In the introduction to his edition of the Greek Pentateuch of Con-
stantinople — accepting Belléli’s opinion in REF 22 (1891), 250-63 —
Hesseling insists on the literal nature of this version “qui est tout a
fait indépendante de la traduction des Septante”."' In a note he adds
“Je n’ai pas non plus trouvé de traits de parenté entre notre ver-
sion et celles dont les fragments nous sommes conservés dans les
Hexapla d’Origéne.”” In his review of O. Gebhardt’s edition of the
Graecus-Venetus, P. F. Frankl expresses a similar opinion against
Delitzsch, Gebhardt and Freudenthal, who saw the Graecus-Venetus
as the last link of Jewish Hellenism.“

Instead, by 1924 Blondheim had already found proof of influence
by the LXX and especially by Aquila on the versions into medieval
and modern Greek.* The data set out there confirm the continuity
of Jewish tradition through the various links of the translations to
medieval Greek. To that data can be added the relationship between
the translator included in manuscript F? and the translator of the
Constantinople Pentateuch. A systematic collation of the fragments
of F° preserved in the Hexaplaric apparatus of Brooke-McLean with
the LXX, “the three” and the Greek text of the Constantinople
Pentateuch has given us the following results: the translator of F°
belongs to the line of previous Jewish translations in adapting literally
to the Masoretic text. And he represents an intermediate link within
the tradition that leads to the Constantinople Pentateuch, i.c. the
agreements in lexicon and idioms between both texts cannot be explained
only by the fact that both faithfully translate the same Hebrew text.
It can be proved from F” and the Constantinople Pentateuch using
the same translation for words which have quite different synonyms
in Greck.

“D.C. Hesseling, Les cing livres de la Loi, U1.

“ TD. C. Hesseling, Les cing livres de la Loi, n. 5.

48 Published in MGI} 24 (1875), 513-19.

* PF. Frankl, in MGW7 24 (1875), 516: “Zwischen der jidischhellenistischen
Literatur und dem Werke eines griechischen Juden des 14. oder 15. Jahrhunderts
lasst sich gar keine Continuitat erkennen oder auch nur voraussetzen.” And for
Freudenthal’s opinion, see J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, Breslau 1875, p. 1290.

* D. S. Blondheim, “Echos du judéo-hellénisme”, 5ff.

184 HE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

If it is difficult to postulate direct dependence on F° of the Greek
translator of the Constantinople Pentateuch, it seems certain that
both translators belong to the same tradition or even use the same
Vorlage, although F° obviously represents an older stage of the language
than the Constantinople Pentateuch.** This hypothesis is supported
by the fact that using the same general translation technique — fidelity
to the Hebrew text ~ Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion do not
agree with I or with the Constantinople Pentateuch in the same
proportion as these last two witnesses agree between themselves. This
new fact, therefore confirms the hypothesis that the Constantinople
Pentateuch depends on earlier Jewish translations into Greek which
produced the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion,
as well as the translation into modern Greek of the Constantinople
Pentateuch. This last document is an excellent witness of the mod-
em Greek spoken before the influence of Turkish began to spread.

No less surprising are the agreements of the new Hebraising trans-
lation of Ex. 36:3-39:13 to be found in the same manuscript in cur-
sive script (= F*) with the text of the Complutensian, agreements
which led Wevers to conclude that one of the sources of the Com-
plutensian must have been related to one of the textual ancestors
of ue

In spite of the inherent difficulty in the exact phonetic reproduc-
tion of a Greek text in Hebrew script, the Constantinople Pentateuch
retains great linguistic importance, given the scarcity of witnesses for
this period, as an example of common colloquial language. The area
of the Epiros must have been particularly productive in this class of
translations since at least the guinta, according to the testimony of
Eusebius of Caesarea,“ was found in Nicopolis near Actium and the
interlinear translation of the book of Jonah is written in the dialect
of Corfu. The conservatism of the Jews in the Epiros region is evi-
dent in Belléli’s remark as recorded by Blondheim that even now

© See J. W. Wevers, Sepluaginta... IH, 1 Exodus, Gottingen 1991, p. 44, In men-
tioning the Greek text of this Pentateuch, Perles was thinking of a possible oral
translation that would have influenced this translation: “Sic Ichnt sich wabrschein-
lich an eine miindlich kursierende altere Ubersetzung und ist fiir den Wortschatz
und die Aussprache des Mittelgriechischen von Wichtigkeit,” see J. Perles, “Jiidisch-
byzantinische Beziehungen”, 575, n. 1.

*” See note 13 in this chapter. See also J. W. Wevers, Sepiuaginta... If, 1 Exodus,
Gottingen 1991, 7-8, and D. Frankel, “Die Quellen der asterisierten Zusatze im
aweiten Tabernakelbericht Exodus 35-40”.

* See chapter 10 on the guinta, p. 156.

JEWISH VERSIONS 185

Hebrew teachers translate the Pentateuch correctly with the words
of the 1547 version, although it contains expressions that today are
strange and obsolete."

Accordingly we preserve sufficiently eloquent links of a Jewish-
Greck or Greek-calque parallel to other calque languages that the Jews
produced in similar cases of bilingualism,™ especially in the versions
in the Romance languages of the Middle Ages and perhaps in the
Old Latin.*!

This chain of Jewish translations into Greek, which culminates in
the Constantinople Pentateuch, to some extent answers the question
as to what happened to the brilliant culture of Hellenistic Judaism
after the rebellion in the time of the emperor Trajan (115-16). In
some way it survived, as we can show through these stuttering frag-
ments of Jewish-Greek and Byzantine culture provided by the bib-
lical glosses in Greek and the Greek texts in Hebrew script that we
have just outlined. The extent of this survival can only be deter-
mined when a systematic study of all these sources has been carried
out. However, I do not wish to close this chapter without a final
reflection. There are parallels that we cannot ignore between the
first translation of the Jewish Law into Greek in 3rd century BcE
Ptolemaic Alexandria and the version into modern Greek of the
Constantinople Pentateuch. Both versions were made by Jews of the
diaspora with the same liturgical and pedagogical aim. The LXX
was also the legal framework for Jews living in the empire of the
Lagides. In the inception of the Constantinople Pentateuch there are
also indications of a politic of unifying the various Jewish commu-
nities of the capital which had become a melting pot of an immi-
grant population with very different origins. However, the differences
cannot be ignored. The LXX very soon became an independent
version that probably replaced the Hebrew Bible in the synagogue

” 1), S. Blondheim, “Echos du judéo-hellénisme”, p. 6, quoting L. Belléli in REZ
22 (1891), 251-52.

% See H. V. Sephiha, Le ladino, judéo-espagnol calque, and Sephiha, “Problématique
du judéo-espagnol”.

51D. S. Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans et la “Vetus Latina”, Paris 1925, 79, and
U. Cassuto, “Jewish Translation of the Bible into Latin and its Importance for the
Study of the Greek and Aramaic Versions”, Commentationes Judaico-Hellenisticae in
memoriam Johannis Lewy, Jerusalem, 1949, 161-72 = Biblical and Onental Studies, Jerusalem
1973, 285-98.

*® “What happened to this culture is one of the great unsolved questions of Jewish
culturai history,” see N. R. M. de Lange, “Hebrew~Greek Genizah T'ragments”,
p. 46.

186 THE SEPTUAGINT IN JEWISH TRADITION

liturgy. The Constantinople version, instead, never became indc-
pendent of the Hebrew text. In fact, the use of Hebrew characters
made it impossible for non-Jews to read and so excluded any pros-
elytising intention. However, it was the first translation into a col-
loquial language of part of Scripture to have the distinction of being
printed; it continues to be a monument to the spoken Greek of 16th
century Constantinople and will remain as an example and culmi-
nation of the chain of Jewish translations into Greek that inevitably
accompanied the peculiar historical circumstances of Jewish life in
the diaspora.**

Sevect BrstioGRaPHy

Amigo, L., “Una aproximacién al Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547)”. Estudios
Biblicos 48 (1990), 81-111.

5 El Pentateuco de Constantinopla » la biblia medieval remanceada judeoespafiola. Criterios
py fuentes de traducciin, Salamanca 1983.

Belléli, L., “Deux versions peu connues du Pentateuque”. REF 22 (1891), 250-63.

‘Une version grecque du Pentateuque du sixiéme siécle”. REG 3 (1890),
288-308. 7 ;

Blondheim, D. S., “Echos du judéo-hellénisme. Etude sur Vinfluence de la Septante
et d’Aquila sur les versions néo-grecques des Juils”. REF 78-79 (1924), 1-14

Browning, R., Medieval and Modern Greek, London 1969.

Chaze, M., “Remarques et notes sur les versions grecque et ladino du Pentateuche
de Constantinople, 1547”, Hommage & Georges Vajda. Etudes d'histoire et de pensée
juwes, ed. G. Nahon, C. Touati, Leuven 1980, 323-32.

Danon, A., “Meirath ‘enaim. Version en néogrec et en caractéres hébraiques de
Jérémie X,11; Dan. 2,5-7,28; et d’Esdras IV,?7~-VI,26 du Caraite Elie Aféda
Béghi (1627)". fAs 4 (1914), 5-65.
~~, “Notice sur la littérature gréco-caraite”. REF 63 (1912), 147-51.

F edalto, G., “Per una biografia di Simone Atumano”. Aeum 40 (1966), 445-67.

Fernandez Marcos, N., “El Pentateuco griego de Constantinopla”. Erytheia, Revista
de estudios bizantinos y neogriegos 6 (1985), 185-203.

, “Some ‘Thoughts on the Later Judaeo-Greek Biblical Tradition”. BYGS 2
(1988), 14-15,

Frankel, D., “Die Quellen der asterisierten Zusatze im zweiten ‘Tabernakelbericht
Exodus 35-40". Studien zur Septuaginta, Gottingen 1990, 140-86.

Fiirst, J., Glossarium Graeco-Hebraeum oder der griechische Worterschatz der jiidischen Midraschiwerke,
Strasbourg 1890.

Gebhardt, O. von, Graecus-Venetus. Pentateuchi Proverbiorum Ruth Cantict Ecclesiasticae Thre-
norum Danielis versio graeca ex unico bibliothecae S. Marci Venetae codice, Leipzig 1875.

Hesseling, D. C., “Le livre de Jonas”. ByZ 10 (1901), 208-17.

~~, Les cing livres de la Loi (Le Pentateuque), Leiden~Leipzig 1897.

Kalitsunakis, J., Grammatik der neugriechischen Volkssprache, Berlin 1963.

* See N. Fernandez Marcos, “El Pentateuco griego de Constantinopla”, pp.
200-203.

JEWISH VERSIONS 187

Krauss, S., “Zur griechischen und lateinischen Lexikographie aus jiidischen Quellen”.
ByZ 2 (1893), 493-548.
—~-—, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwirter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, Berlin 1,
1898, II, 1899 = Hildesheim 1964.
Lange, N. R. M. de, “Greek and Byzantine Fragments in the Cairo Genizah”.
BCS 5 (1989), 13°17.
ebrew/Greek Manuscripts: Some Notes”. 778 46 (1995), 262-70.
ebrew~Greek Genizah Fragments and their Bearing on the Culture of
‘Byzantine Jewry”. Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem 1986,
39-46.

~—, “Judaeo-Greek Studies: Achievements and Prospects”. B7GS 17 (1995),
27-34.
= -, “The Jews of Byzantium and the Greek Bible: Outline of the Problems
and Suggestions for Future Research”, Rashi 1040-1990. Hommage a Ephraim

EL Urbach, ed. G. Sed-Rajna, Paris 1993, 203-10.

‘wo Genizah Fragments in Hebrew and Greek”. Interpreting the Hebrew
Bible: Essays in honour of E. 1, J. Rosenthal, ed. J. A. Emerton and $. C. Reif;
Cambridge 1982, 64-83 (1 Kgs 6:20-8:37 and Qoh. 2:13-23).

-—, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah, Viibingen 1996.

Mereati, G., “Chi sia Pautore della nuova versione dall’ebraico del codice veneto
greco VII”. RB ns 13 (1916), 510-26.

Mirambel, A., La langue grecque moderne. Description ef analyse, Paris 1959.

Neubauer, A., “On Non-Hebrew Languages Used by Jews”. JQ 4 (1891-92), 9-19,

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., “TAmoodpiov éBpaixosAAnvucdy”. Festschnift Dr. A. Karkavy,
St Petersburg 1908, I, 68-91.

Perles, J., “Jiidisch-byzantini Bezichungen”. ByZ 2 (1893), 569-84.

Sephiha, H. V., “Ladino (judéo-espagnol calque) et commentateurs”. RHR 188
(1975), 116-28.

, “Problématique du judéo-espagnol”. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de

Paris 69 (1974), 159-89.

> Le ladino, judéo-espagnol calque. Deutéronome. Versions de Constantinople (1347) et
de R errara (1553). Edition, éude linguistique et lexique, Paris 1973.

Sirat, C., “Un vocabulaire de mots @’emprunt gréco-latins dans un manuscrit hébreu
du XHIé siécle”. BIRHT 12 (1963), 103-13.

Sperber, D., A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature, Bar-Tan
1984.

Wevers, J. W., “A Secondary Text in Codex Ambrosianus of the Greek Exodus”.
Philologia Sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien fiir Hermann F. Frede und Waller
Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. R. Gryson, Freiburg 1993, 36-48.

Wevers, J. W., Sepluaginia... IL, 1 Exodus, Gittingen 1991, pp. 43-44.

PART FOUR

THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

CHAPTER TWELVE

TRANSMISSION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY

a) Introduction

Apart from some exceptions to which we shall refer later, and by
contrast with the different reactions of the Jewish means before the
translation of the LXX of which we spoke in the preceding section,
it can be stated that the transmission and textual history of the Greck
Bible took place mainly in Christian circles. This fact is important
when describing both the internal history of transmission (palaco-
graphic mistakes, typology of variants, ctc.) and its external history
(the avatars of the various manuscripts, their prologues, colophons
and other annotations with which they are provided).'

From among the most significant exceptions must be noted Pap.
Gr. 458 of the John Rylands Library (= Rahlfs 957), from the 2nd
century BCE, the oldest known fragment of the LXCX: it contains
fragments of Dt. 23-28.? Papyrus Fouad Inv Nr 266 (= Rahlfs 848),
dated around 50 scr and with the Tetragrammaton written in square
Hebrew letters: it contains fragments from Deuteronomy 17-33.° The
Septuagintal manuscripts of the Pentateuch identified in Caves 4 and
7 in Qumran are pap7QLXXEx (= Rahlfs 805); 4OLXXLev* (=
Rahlfs 801); pap¢QLXXLev? (= Rahlfs 802); 4QLXXNum (= Rahlf
803) and 4QLXXDeut (= Rahlfs 819). The fragments of Leviticus
2-5 found in 4QLXXLev’, from the Ist century BcE are written in
a script related to the script of papyrus Fouad 266, with the
Tetragrammaton written in Greck (iém) instead of a simple transcrip-
tion or the translation «bpioc.* Outside the Pentateuch, two other
manuscripts of the LXX were found, ic. fragments of the Letter of

' For the other aspect worth considering, the impact of the transmission of
Christianity on the Scriptures inherited from the Jews, see the discerning approach
of R. A. Kraft, “Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures”.

2K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri, 96.

3K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri, 95, and A. Leone, L’evoluzione
della Scrittura, 47-48,

‘K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri, 90, and P. W. Skehan,
“The Qumran Manuscripts and ‘Textual Criticism”, VS 4 (1975), 155-59.

192 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Jeremiah 43-44 in 7Q2 (= Rahlfs 804), both dated around 50 scx,
and the scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets (GHevXIgr = Rahlfs
943), which D. Barthélemy identified and studied, and which was
recently edited by E. Tov in the series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.
According to experts in papyrology, it is to be dated between 50 BcE
and 50 cE, more probably towards the end of the Ist century Bok.®

Besides these documents which from their age could not come
from Christian communities, the possibility has to be reckoned with
that some other papyrus or fragment up to the 3rd century cE also
comes from Jewish circles, although it is not always easy to decide
this. This possibility almost becomes reality as new documents appear
and when one considers the approximately forty pre-Hexaplaric
papyri, ic. earlier than the middle of the 3rd century ce, which
O’Callaghan includes in his list of LXCX papyri.’

The period of acclimatisation of the Greek Old Testament to the
Christian Church extends from 70 to 135 ce and includes at least
three phenomena that affect the transmission process of the Greck
Bible:

1. The displacement of the scroll by the codex, a much discussed
problem in respect of chronology, but generally accepted as a fact
that determined the history of transmission in Jewish and Christian
circles. In the synagogue the scroll continued to be used, which

°K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri, 86 and 204. A. Leone,
Levoluzione della Scrittura, 48, n. 5. Probably some of the Greek fragments from Cave
7 that O’Callaghan has recently tried to identify as texts from the New Testament
JJ. O’Callaghan, “;Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumran?”, Bib 53
(1972), 91-100; O’Callaghan, “¢1 Tim 3,16; 4,1.3 en 7Q4?”, Bib 53 (1972), 362-67;
O'Callaghan, Los primeros testimonios del Nuevo Testamento, Cordoba 1995, 95~145} in
fact come from the LXX or the Greek Pseudepigrapha like | Henoch, as has been
suggested by some scholars opposed to his identification. Cf. especially V. Spottorno,
“Nota sobre los papiros de la cueva 7 de Qumran”, Estudios Clasicos XV, 63 (1971),
261-63, and C. H. Roberts, “On some Presumed Papyrus Fragments of the New
Testament from Qumran”, 77S 33 (1972), 446-47. This is not the place to enter
fully into the debate that has arisen in connection with the identification of the
fragments which has not generally been accepted by specialists. For the current
state of affairs cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity”,
Theology Digest 42 (1995), 303-19 and V. Spottorno, “Can Methodological Limits
be Set in the Debate on the Identification of 7Q5?”, DSD 6 (1999), 66-77.

° D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTS 10 (1963), and E. Tov, The Greek
Minor Prophets Scroll from Nakal Hever (8 HeoXHler). The Seiyal Collection £, with the
collaboration of R, A. Kraft and a contribution by P. J. Parsons, DJ VIII, Oxford
1990, p. 26.

7 J. O'Callaghan, “Lista de los papiros de los LXX”.

TRANSMISSION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY 193

means that every scroll had its own textual history. The Church,
instead, opted for the codex in the 2nd century, which is able to
include the whole Bible, as can be seen in the great uncials. Even
Pap. 967, from the 2nd/3rd century cx, included at least three
scrolls or megillét, ic. Ezekiel, Daniel and Esther.’ This substitu-
tion, which began in the 2nd century ce,’ was gradual. Only after
the 4th/5th century did the production of the codex excced that
of the scroll, until by the 6th/7th century the scroll finally dis-
appeared."

2. The general use of «dpiog for the Tetragrammaton in manuscript
transmission, even though in the serptoria in which the Hexapla
was transmitted it was obviously preserved, and being written in
Greek, gave rise to a series of deformations collected in the lists
of names of God reproduced by some Fathers of the Church.'!
In all likelihood the authors of the Pentateuch already used «dprog
to translate the Tetragrammaton, perhaps even very early on. Certainly
in the Ist century BcE, in Palestinian Judaism there was an archais-
ing process of correcting the sacred name, writing it in Hebrew
in the square or palaeo-Hebrew script, or transliterated into
Greck,'"? whereas in Christian circles the use of xbpiog again
became general.

3. Finally, the introduction or at least the general use due to Christian
influence of the abbreviations in the most frequent nomina sacra:
Gedc, Kdpioc, vidc, Xpiotds, Inoods, xvedpa (abbreviated as Qc,
xg, 0g, Xg, Ig, nva.), which also happened with a certain chrono-
logical fluctuation and frequent variations of one name for another."
In spite of the new documentation which has appeared in pre-
Christian Egyptian papyri and in Hebrew and Greck texts from

® A, Leone, L’evoluzione della Scrittura, 18-20.

° Very probably it was a Christian adoption ¢. 100 ce or perhaps prior to this
date, given the good number of Christian codices in papyrus during the 2nd cen-
tury cE, see C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex, 54-62.

“R. Devreesse, Introduction & Vétude des manuscrits grecs, 9-11.

" See N. Fernandez Marcos, “toite, éoepeé, ai y otros nombres de Dios entre
los hebreos”, Sefarad 35 (1975), 91~106.

". See A. Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragramm”, 99-101.

3 See A. H.R, E. Paap, Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyrt of the First Fixe Centuries
A. D.: The Sources and some Deductions, Leiden 1959, 124-25; J. O’Callaghan, “Nomina
Sacra” in papyris Graects sacculi IE neotestamentariis, Rome 1970, 21 and 71-81, and
S. Brown, “Concerning the Origin of the Nomina Sacra”, Studia Papyrologica 9 (1970),
719.

194 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Palestine found in Qumran, we have no proof that the abbrevi-
ations for the nomina sacra were used before the period of Christian
transmission."

Certain other changes in connection which those noted here can be
suspected due to the LXX coming into Christian hands, but they
cannot be proved.

After the 2nd century ce, the Atticist movement made itself felt
also in the textual history of the LXX, as A. Rahlfs, J. Ziegler and
others have shown. However, the Atticist corrections were not the
only stylistic changes to the Greek Bible. Traces of at least two other
types of revision can be detected in this stage of transmission:

]. the elimination of Semitisms which are replaced by a more lit-
erary koiné Greek, probably before the 2nd century cE;

2. the correction of the Greek text to accommodate it to the Hebrew
text of the time, a process reflected in some pre-Hexaplaric papyri
and in the Katye recension which was to culminate in the recen-
sional undertaking by Origen."

b) External Transmission

The external transmission of the LXX is linked on the one hand
with the history of the book and of writing in antiquity, a history
to be found in manuals of Greek palaeography. On the other hand,
it is subject to particular vicissitudes which the Greck Old Testament
experienced at the hands of successive recensionists. For the history
of books, material used, development of the uncial, semi-uncial and
minuscule scripts,!® the various systems of abbreviation and short-
hand, colophons and other scholia of manuscripts, palimpsests, etc.,
we refer to the first part of the book by Devreesse on Greek manu-
scripts and the book by Metzger.’ In particular, the two recent

* See C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, London
1979, 28°31, and B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 36-37.

8G. D. Kilpatrick, The Cato Papyrus of Genesis, 2228.

© A minuscule which in turn is divided into ancient (9th-10th centuries), mid-
dle (10th-12th century) and recent (13th—14th centuri

" R. Devreesse, /ntroduction a Uétude des manuscrils grecs; B. M. Metzger, Adanuscripts
of the Greek Bible, and C. Wendel, Die griechisch-rimische Buchbesschreibung verglichen mit
der des Vorderen Orients, Halle 1949,

TRANSMISSION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY 195

monographs by Cavallo and Leone" can be used as a guide to the
biblical majuscules. The many studies on papyri and on particular
biblical manuscripts can be consulted in the specialised bibliography
of the LXX."* An idea of the importance of the biblical manuscripts
can be gained from the fact that in a list of uncials from the 4th
to 6th centuries there is an overwhelming proportion of biblical manu-
scripts (twenty) as against only four of a secular nature.

The collection of the Greek Old Testament comprises a unit with
its own textual history. Although Bickermann’s statement that the
transmission of the LXX from its origins up to the 3rd century cE
provokes us to a confession of ignorance” seems exaggerated, it is
certain that only recently have we been able to glimpse some indi-
cations of the textual state at this stage of transmission.

We have already indicated the signs of revision in the text of the
LXX before the arrival of Christianity, some which are stylistic in
nature and others to make the Greck fit the current Hebrew text,
as well as the other changes that the LXX underwent to make it
into the official Bible of the Church. In terms of description, a large
number of Byzantine manuscripts are prefaced by the Letier of Aristeas
in the form of a prologue to the Octatcuch and as an epilogue the
copyists insert three works on:

1. the various editions of the Greek Bible (XX, Aquila, Symmachus,
Theodotion, guinla, sexta and septima);

2. the successive deportations from Israel (nine in all from the inva-
sion of pharaoh Shishak I to the Roman conquest by Vespasian);

3. the divine names among the Hebrews (ten in all, followed by an
excursus on the Tetragrammaton).

From Origen’s reaction to attempting the work of the Hexapla we
sense to what extent the transmission of the Bible among the Jews
had become separated from the transmission of the LXX in the
hands of Christians. However, even the Church tradition represented
by the common LXX did not provide a unified text. The pre-
Hexaplaric papyri, increasingly more numerous, are witnesses to this
disagreement. It is enough to mention here the most important of
the biblical papyri earlier than Origen, the Chester-Beatty Papyri,

18 G, Cavallo, Richerche sulla maiuscola biblica, and A. Leone, L’evoluzione della Scrittura.
’ See CB 68-80 and BS 88-102.
*® E. J. Bickerman, “Some Notes on the Transmission of the LXX”, 178.

196 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

written between the 2nd and 4th centuries ce, and Papyrus 967 from
the close of the 2nd or the beginning of the 3rd century cE.

Besides this already multiple LXX, Origen came across the Jewish
texts of “the three”, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and probably
other Jewish translation or revisions that were in circulation, the
remains of which have left traces in the whole channel of Hexaplaric
transmission. At this moment the preparation of the Hexapla comes
on stage, to which I will devote the next chapter, to complicate even
further the already entangled transmission of the LXX owing to
Origen’s linguistic criteria, predominantly synchronic, which gov-
erned his redaction.

Towards the end of the 4th century, according to Jerome’s testi-
mony, exemplars of the Greek Bible were circulating under the
name or patronage of Lucian. They were put into circulation in
competition with the scientific edition of Caesarea spread by Eusebius
and Pamphilus.”* However, the Antiochene teachers of exegesis kept
silent about the founder of their school and one of its most significant
personalities.

The edict of Diocletian on 23 February 303, which commanded
churches to be destroyed and the Scriptures to be thrown into the
fire, did not affect the library of Caesarea, at least not fully, since
several colophons of manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus to Esther
and 2 Ezra, the Codex Marchalianus at the end of Isaiah and Ezekiel
as well as various passages of the Syro-Hexapla, have subscriptions
that go back to copies of exemplars from the sacred library of
Caesarea, corrected according to the Hexaplaric edition.”

*| Jerome, Praef. in Lib. Paralipomenon, and R. Devreesse, Introduction & Vétude des
manuseriis grecs, 118.

* See the passage of the Armenian Pseudo-Chrysostom at Is. 9:6 quoted by
J. Ziegler (Septuaginta XIV Isaias, Géttingen 1939, 73): “Patet igitur sanctum martyrem
{Lucianum) nihil addidisse vel detraxisse, sed ab Hebraeis et ab aliis interpretibus
{ea} collegisse et in ordinem digessiss¢, et omnia in lucem prodidisse. Non est igi-
tur contemnenda (interpretatio) Luciani, sed immo praestantior atque correctior est
quam textus Palestinorum.”

RR. Devreesse, Introduction a Vétude des manuscrits grecs, 122-28. Here, by way of
example, is the colophon of the later corrector of Sinaiticus at 2 Ezra: dvteBAnOn
pds TaAaidtotov Aiov dvtiypapov Sed:opSapévov yeipi tod &yiov ucptopos Tlaygirov.
Snep dvtiypapov xpos tH TEAL drocnHElwoic tic Ldidzerpog odtod dméKerte ExovEa
odtm¢ MeteAtu@On cai StmpOGbn xpdc to. “E€axAa ‘Qoryévong. ’Avtovivos
avrépakev’ Tdppros S16p8moe. (“It was collated with a very ancient manuscript
corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus. At the end of this manuscript
there was a note in his hand and writing which ran as follows: ‘it was copied and

TRANSMISSION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY 197

When Constantine came to power, he was concerned with spread-
ing Bibles corrected according to Origen’s recension.” The suspi-
cions and hostility towards Origen’s doctrine started in 400 and in
543 Justinian condemned nine of its sentences. This reaction against
Origen favoured the spread of the koiné or Antiochene Vulgate.

Independently of the existence of the Hesychian recension, as yet
not identified, Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on the Twelve
Prophets, reproduces an Egyptian local text of the LXX in the same
way that Theodoret of Cyr reflects an Antiochene text. Cyril rarely
mentions Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, but instead he often
quotes another Jewish edition ) tév EBpatov Exdoo1, and according
to Barthélemy its initial sighum ¢’ was confused in the Twelve Prophets
with the sigham for the guinta (e’).”

The fact is that the Bible of the Fathers in the 4th/5Sth centuries
does not present a uniform text. It has becn proved that the pre-
Origen koiné did not exist as such, but the pre-Hexaplaric papyri are
witnesses to extreme variety. With the help of “the three”, this text
was adapted by Theodotion to the sequence and arrangement of the
Hebrew text in circulation at his time. The Hexapla is a source of
continual confusion, especially in positioning the Aristarchic signs
when their true meaning was not perceived by copyists. It is much
more difficult to ascertain their precise position since the asterisk
sometimes also referred to a marginal gloss.

The principal uncials we preserve already belong to the 4th and
5th centuries: Vatican, Alexandrian and Sinaiticus, which in Judges,
Tobias and often in 1 Kings have very divergent texts. To this period
belong the Eastern koiné and the Egyptian koiné mentioned by Jerome
in the prologue to his translation of the book of Chronicles. The
first has been identified as the Lucianic recension, discovered in
almost all the books of the Greek Bible except for the Pentateuch,
and reproduces the ancient LXX with some stylistic corrections
and a large number of additions taken from the Hexaplaric recen-
sion. It has not been possible to identify the Egyptian koiné as the

corrected according to Origen’s Hexapla; Antoninus collated it; Pamphilus corrected
it”). Antoninus died a martyr on the 13 November 308, see G. Mercati, Nuave nole
di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica, Rome 1941, 14-15.

* Eusebius, Vita Constantini IV, 34-37, and H. Dérrie, “Zur Geschichte der
Scptuaginta”, on information from ancient sources and the real history of the
Lucianic recension.

* See chapter 10, pp. 157-58.

198 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

recension of Hesychius; however, there are witnesses of an Alexandrian
text that agrees especially with the quotations from the Egyptian
Fathers, particularly Cyril of Alexandria and Didymus the Blind.

To this varied spectrum have to be added other editions often
cited by the Fathers such as the Syriac, Hebrew, Samariticon, Josephus.
The LXX that the Fathers of the Church knew and used was very
far from presenting a unified text.

From the 10th to the 15th centuries the texts continued to be
copied, accumulating new risks of confusion due to the use of the muinus-
cule script. However, the minuscule manuscripts also preserve pre-
cious variants (recentiores non deteriores) often vouched for by much older
witnesses. Several of these readings have found, in recently discov-
ered papyri, confirmation of their textual worth and their antiquity.

Another determining factor in the external history of the LXX is
that the sequence of books in Greek is not the same as in Hebrew;
that this sequence is not even kept uniform in the various Greek
manuscripts; and that the lists of books in the Fathers of the Church
and in the Councils are not always the same. The titles of the books
are sometimes different in Greek and in Hebrew; for example, the
books of the Pentateuch, cited in Hebrew according to the first word
or words of each, adopt in the LXX descriptive names almost always
suggested by one word of a version. And besides the books exclu-
sive to the Alexandrian text (1 Ezra, Wisdom, Sira, Judith, Tobit,
Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 1-4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon)
differences from the Hebrew in content and sequence are not rare.”

The beginning of the 16th century ushered in the period of printed
editions, still with primitive textual criteria. Then came the polyglot
and the scientific editions, some of them, as yet incomplete, propos-
ing as their goal the restoration of a text as close as possible to what
the original LXX might have been.”

8 See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914,
197-210.

2? For printed editions from the Renaissance to the 19th century, H. B. Swete,
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 171-94, and N. Fernandez Marcos, “Los
estudios de ‘Septuaginta’. Visién retrospectiva y problematica mas reciente”, CFC
11 (1976), 413-168, esp. 419M, and O. Munnich, “Le texte de la Septante”,
194-200, can be consulted.

TRANSMISSION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY 199
c) Internal Transmission

As for the internal history of the LXX, it can be stated with Margolis
that the more a book is copied the more the influences of one text
on another multiply, as do the possibilities of palaeographic mis-
takes.” Hence no manuscript is valueless and none is free of seri-
ous corruptions. In the Greek Bible it seems impossible to establish
a stemma of manuscripts in imitation of the ideal presented by
P. Maas for the restoration of classical texts.”? Nevertheless, manu-
scripts can be grouped into families on the basis of common addi-
tions and omissions as well as the corruptions shared by several
witnesses, With this procedure, Margolis identified four main recen-
sions in the book of Joshua® and by the same method the different
recensions of each book are determined in the critical editions of
Gottingen. There is a whole range of variants with different ¢ypolo-
gies. Among the commonest palacographic variants can be noted:

1. mistakes due to confusing the letters of the following groups in
the first stage of uncial writing: AAAM // EZ@O // PTYI //
HNMII;

2. mistakes arising from the stage of transmission with minuscule
writing: B/p // 6/6.

Confusion of sounds with close articulation due to internal dictation,
such as p/A // o/B // 9/8 // x/y. Interchange of consonants at the
end of a word like 6/B // d/p // w/v, a problem aggravated by
manuscripts that make use of abbreviations. Omissions through hap-
lography, homoioteleuton or homoioarcton, transposed letters and words,
dittography, etc.

Besides the studies by Margolis, the sections on Grammatica in
the Géttingen edition of books already published illustrate new
aspects of the internal history of transmission.’ For the study of the

8M. L. Margolis, “The Textual Criticism of the Greek Old Testament”, 187.

” P. Maas, Textknitik, Leipzig 1960, 71.

” M. L. Margolis, The Book of Joshua in Greek According to the Critically Restored Text
with an Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal Recensions and of the Individual
Witnesses, Paris 1931, which now has to be supplemented by the edition of Part V:
Joshua 19:39-24:33, Philadelphia 1992, edited by E. Tov and L. Greenspoon, Max
Leopold Margolis: A Scholar’s Scholar, Atlanta, Ga, 1987. See also H. S. Gehman,
“Some Types of Errors”.

3. R. Hanhart, Sepluaginia. VII, 3 Esther, Gottingen 1966, 99-123, and Hanhart,
Sepiuaginta. VII, 1 Esdrae Liber 1, Gottingen 1974, 33-51; Hanhart, Sepluaginta. VII,

200 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

manuscript material of the LXX and its classification, the principal
existing editions and the problems they pose we have to refer you —
as they exceed the limits of this introduction — to specialised studies
that have treated more exhaustively the mass of data related to
the topic.”

d@) Textual Restoration

Due to the complex evolutionary development of the text of the
LXX throughout history, the reverse process of restoration of a text
that is as close as possible to the original is extremely difficult. Hence
textual criticism also continues to occupy a prime position in LXX
studies. The first attempts at restoration are the printed editions of
the 16th century: the Complutensian (1517), Aldine (1518) and Sixtine
(1587). They present the text in accordance with traditional pro-
nunciation, a method which successive editions of the LXX adopted
until the manual of F. Constantin von Tischendorf appeared.™
Another editorial procedure, followed by the great Brooke-McLean
edition, consists in collecting all the material available in one criti-
cal apparatus and editing as a text the diplomatic reproduction of
a standard manuscript, the Codex Vaticanus.** The scientific Gottingen
edition, instead, still unfinished, is an eclectic edition and has the
deliberate aim of preferring in the restoration of the text the Greek
forms to be expected at the time and under the conditions of the
translations, even at the cost of rejecting those of the manuscripts.

2 Esdrae Liber H, Géttingen 1993, 32-64, can be consulted, where he examines the
data from the manuscript tradition of these books following the guidelines set out
by H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuaginta,
Cambridge 1909, and W. Crénert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, Leipzig 1903.

® See CB 66-74; BS 87-100, and A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschrifien
des Alten Testament, Géttingen 1914, which includes papyri as well as manuscripts;
to be supplemented for the field of papyri by K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen
christlichen Papyri. The main LXX manuscripts are described in H. B. Swete, An
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 122-70, and in S. Jellicoe, SMS, 176-224,

% F, Constantin von Tischendorf, Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes,
Leipzig 1850.

# A. E. Brooke, N. McLean and (from Samuel to Tobit) H. St J. Thackeray,
The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other
Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient
Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, Cambridge 190640. Nine volumes have
appeared with the following books: Genesis, Exodus~Leviticus, Numbers~Deuteronomy,
Joshua—Judges~Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, 1-2 Ezra and
Esther-Judith-Tobit.

TRANSMISSION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY 201

This is how Rahlfs, Ziegler, Hanhart and Wevers proceeded® in
their respective editions, according to the guidelines followed in mod-
ern editions of Greek texts. It is the procedure that P. Katz defends
in his recent monograph on the text of the LXX edited by Gooding.*®
The books of the LXX that have not yet been edited in either the
Cambridge or the Géttingen series are: 4 Maccabees, Song of Songs,
Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and Psalms of Solomon. For these, the man-
ual edition by Rahlfs*” can be used, or else, with more extensive use
of the manuscripts, the edition by Holmes~Parsons. An eclectic edi-
tion of a particular recension, the Antiochene or Lucianic text, for
the Historical books has been published by the Madrid team.°°
Although our knowledge of Greek of the 3rd and 2nd centuries
BCE is still very imperfect, especially of literary Greek, we can already
count on a considerable number of inscriptions that run from archaic
dialects to the Byzantine period, and on an increasing number of
papyri that cover the period of formation of the LXX. Basing his
work on this documentation and on the grammatical studies on the
inscriptions and papyri, Katz is optimistic about the possibilities of
restoring the LXX.* In his Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (Leipzig 1903),
W. Cronert set out the basic Lines separating the different ways of
pronunciation that left traces in the manuscripts during the Ptolemaic,
Imperial and Byzantine periods. All this has increasingly helped to
clarify the complex transmission of the LXX, contaminated since
the period of recensions as is reflected in a good number of mixed

3 The list of books that have so far appeared in the editio magna de Géttingen,
with their respective editors, in chronological order, is as follows: A. Rahlfs, Psaims
(1931, 1979); W. Kappler, / Maccabees (1936, 1990); J. Ziegler, Isaiah (1939, 1983);
J. Ziegler, Twelve Prophets (1943, 1984); J. Ziegler, Ezekiel (1952, 1978); J. Ziegler,
Daniel, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon (1954); J. Ziegler, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations,
Letter of Jeremiah (1957, 1976); R. Hanhart, 2 Maccabees (1959, 1976); R. Hanhart,
3 Maccabees (1960, 1980); J. Ziegler, Wisdom (1962, 1981); J. Ziegler, Eclessiasticus
(1965, 1981}; R. Hanhart, Esther (1967, 1983); R. Hanhart, J Ezra (1974, 1991);
. W. Wevers, Genesis (1974); Wevers, Deuteronomy (1977), R. Hanhart, Judith (1979);
. Ziegler, Job (1982); J. W. Wevers, Munbers (1982), R. Hanhart, Tobit (1983);
. W. Wevers, Leviticus (1986); Wevers, Exodus (1991); R. Hanhart, 2 Ezra (1993).

% P, Walters, The Text of the Septuagint, 10-14.
9 A. Rahits, Septuaginia, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart
1935, and later reprints.

3 R. Holmes and J. Parsons, Vetus Testamentum Graccum cum variis lectionibus, 5 vols,
Oxford, 17981827,

* N. Fernandez Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, El texto autioqueno de la Biblia griega
THIN, Madrid, 1989-96.

HOt

202 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

manuscripts. For the pre-recensional period, with the help of older
papyri, we can go back to a text that with great probability and in
spite of multiple determining factors, is close to the original LXX.
These are the presuppositions of the Géttingen edition. The results
are being nuanced as the new critical edition of each book incor-
porates the most recent achievements of philology and other sciences
of antiquity.

SeLect BrstioGRaPHy

Aland, K., Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyrt. I Biblische Papyri. Alles Testament,
Neues Testament, Varia, Apokryphen, Berlin-New York 1976 (with the review by
J. O'Callaghan in Bib 57 [1976], 560-67).

Ally, Z., and L. Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, A
Photographic Edition, PTA 27, Bonn 1980.

Barthélemy, D., “L’Ancien Testament a mari 4 Alexandrie”. TZ 21 (1965), 358-70.

Bickerman, E. J., “Some Notes on the T’ransmission of the LXX”, A. Marx Jubilee
Volume, New York 1950, 149-78.

Bogaert, P.-M., “Septante et versions grecques”. DBS 12, 1993, 536 692, especially
650-64 and 666-72.

Cavallo, G., Richerche sulla maiuscola biblica, Florence 1967.

Devreesse, R, Introduction & Vétude des manuserits Brees, Paris 1954.

Dorrie, H., “Zur Geschichte der Septuaginta im Jahrhundert Konstantins”. ZNW
39 (1940), 57-110.

Fermfndez Marcos, N., “Tipotogia de variantes en la transmision de un texto patris-
tico”. Emerila 45 (197), 19-32.

Fritsch, Ch. 'T., “The Treatment of Hexaplaric Signs in the Syro-Hexaplar of
Proveria BL 72 (1953), 16981.

Gehman, H. S., “Some ‘Types of Errors of ‘Transmission in the LXX”, VT 3 (1953),
397-400.

Graetz, H., “Falschungen in dem Texte der LXX von christlicher Hand zu dog-
matischen Zwecken”. MGW 2 (1853), 432-36; 3 (1854), 121-23.

Haelst, J. van, Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens, Paris 1976.

Irigoin, J., “Structure ct évolution des écritures livresques de l’époque byzantine”.
Polychronion. Festschrift fiir Franz Délger, Heidelberg 1966, 253-65.

Kenyon, F. G., The Text of the Greck Bible, London 1937 (3rd edn, London 1975).

Kilpatrick, G. D., “The Cairo Papyrus of Genesis and Deuteronomy (P. F. Inv.
266)". Etudes de Papyrologie 9 (1971), 221-26.

Kraft, R. A., “Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological
Probe”. Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme. Mélanges offerts 4 Marcel Simon, Paris
1978, 207-26.

Leone, A., L’evoluzione della Scritlura nei papiri greci del Vecchio Testamento, Barcelona
1975.

Margolis, M. L., “Scribal Errors in the LXX” (in Hebrew). Fs. zu Ehren des Dr.
A. Karkavy, St Petersburg 1908, 112-16.

Margolis, M. L., “The Textual Criticism of the Greek Old Testament”. Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society 67 (1928), 187-97.

Metzger, B. M., Afanuseripis of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography, New
York-Oxford 1981.

Munnich, O., “Le texte de la Septante”. M. Harl et al, La Bible grecque des Seplanie,
129-42 and 194-200.

TRANSMISSION AND TEXTUAL HISTORY 203

O'Callaghan, J., “Lista de los papiros de los LXX”. Bib 56 (1975), 74-93.

Roberts, C. H., The Antinoopolis Papyri: Part 1. Edited with Translations and Notes, London
1950.

Secligmann, J. L., “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Masoretic
Text and the Septuagint’. V7 11 (1961), 201-21.

Skeat, T. C., “Early Christian Book-production: Papyri and Manuscripts”. The
Cambridge History of the Bible 2, Cambridge 1969, 54-80.

Stegmiiller, O., “Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Bibel”. Geschichte der Textiberlieferung der
antiken und mittelalt, Literatur, Zurich 1961, 1, 152-64.

Turner, E. G., Greek Papyri: An tntroduction, Oxford 1968 (I, Writings, Materials and
Books).

Ulrich, E. C., “The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran, Including
Newly-Identified Fragments of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut)”. De Septuaginta,
1984, 71-82.

Walters, P. (formerly Katz), The Text of the Septuagint: Iis Corruptions and their Emendation
(ed. D. W. Gooding), Cambridge 1973 (with the reviews by S. P. Brock in J7S
25, 1 [1974], 148-52, and by J. Barr in VT 25, 2 [1975], 247-54).

Wendland, P., “Zur altesten Geschichte der Bibel in der Kirche”. ZVW 1 (1900),
267-90.

Wevers, J. W., “Text History and Text Criticism of the Septuagint”. V7S 29, Leiden
1978, 392-402.

Ziegler, J., “Dic Bedeutung des Chester—Beatty~Scheide Papyrus 967 fiir die
Textiiberlieferung der Ezechiel-LXX”. ZAW 48 (1945), 76-94.

This list can be supplemented by the extensive bibliography of BS 87-107
concerning particular aspects of transmission.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA

a) Origen and his Knowledge of Hebrew

Origen, perhaps the most important and discussed theologian of the
Eastern Church, was born around 185, probably in Alexandria. He
was the disciple of the neo-Platonist Ammonius Sacas and a co-
disciple of Porphyrius. His hectic lifestyle, due to journeys and per-
secution, put him in contact with Rome (¢. 215), Palestine (230) and
once again Alexandria (231/2). Although he moved around so much,
this did not prevent him from being one of the most productive
writers of his time. Director of the School of Catechetics in Alexandria,
in which he was professor of philosophy, theology and exegesis, after
234/5 he moved to Caesarea where he founded a school like the
one in Alexandria. He probably died in Tyre ¢. 253-54 as a result
of the torture he suffered in the persecution of Decius.'

Of the many aspects of his human life we are particularly inter-
ested in Origen as textual critic, as author of the Hexapla. In con-
nection with the composition of the Hexapla, one of the most discussed
problems is his knowledge of Hebrew. To penetrate this area we
rely on two sources of information: one direct, reflected in the ancient
accounts regarding his studies, his contact with Jews and the method
he followed in the composition of the Hexapla; and the other indi-
rect, from his works and in particular the knowledge of Hebrew
reflected in his biblical quotations and the exegesis of certain
passages.

According to Eusebius and Jerome, Origen was the first Christian
that we know of who learned Hebrew.’ This evidence has been inter-

‘ See B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie. Leben, Schrifien und Lehre der Kirchenviiter,
Freiburg—-Basle~Vierna 1966, 197-209, and P. Nautin, Onigéne, 413-41.

2 Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. VI, 16: tooattn 8 etofyeto tH ‘Opiyéver tov Ociwv Adyav
annxpiPopévn sétactg, a> Kal thy ‘EBpoiSa yA@rtov expoOeiv té&>e te mapd tots
‘lovdatotg éngepopévac xpwtotixovg abdtoig 'EBpaimv otoryeloig ypopac Ktipo
Wrov noujouc8on (“Origen’s research on the divine Scriptures was so meticulous
that he even managed to learn Hebrew thoroughly and made his own the original
Scriptures which belong to the Jews in Hebrew characters”), And Jerome in De wir.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 205

preted in various ways. Nevertheless, at the beginning of this cen-
tury, the opinion of specialists is growing in favour of Origen’s knowl-
edge of Hebrew and thus in favour of Origen being the author of
the second column of the Hexapla.

H. Lietzmann reached the conclusion that his learning of Hebrew
hardly went beyond the alphabet, since in spite of the testimony of
Eusebius and Jerome, his writings do not reveal a real knowledge
of the language.’ C. J. Elliott holds that the first two columns of the
Hexapla must have been exclusively the work of his Jewish amanu-
enses.’ In the second edition of The Cairo Geniza, P. Kahle is more
optimistic than in the first in respect of Origen’s Hebrew. According
to Kahle, he knew Hebrew but not well enough to compose the
whole Hexapla. In line with his targumic theory on the origins of
the LXX, the second column, says Kahle, was not composed by
Origen or entrusted to his co-workers but was taken from translit-
erated Hebrew texts that circulated previously among the Jews.$

Another group of specialists, particularly R. P. C. Hanson and
G. Bardy, think that Origen did know Hebrew, but only superficially.
As a result he resorted to Jewish teachers, as Jerome did later, to
resolve the problems of the holy language. Hanson reaches these
conclusions from interpretation of the proper names.‘

On the other hand, Origen always talks of his great lack of
confidence in his knowledge of Hebrew. His ctymologies come from
Christian compilations. Some Hebrew etymologies probably derive
from rabbis during his stay in Caesarea.

Bardy also insists that when Origen speaks of his expertise in
Hebrew, he is much more modest than Eusebius and Jerome claim.
Sometimes he refers to numerous Jewish traditions but he never indi-
cates the exact source, using instead such expressions as “the Hebrews”,
“the masters of the Jews”, “the wise men among the Hebrews”, “a
tradition has reached mc”, etc. He seems to restrict himself to the
interpretations and legends that come from Jewish traditions, many
of them by word of mouth and others from reading apocryphal and

il., 54: “quis autem ignorat quod tantum in scripturis divinis habuerit studii ut
etiam Hebraeam linguam contra aetatis gentisque suae naturam edisceret?”

“H. Lietazmann, The Founding of the Church Universal, London 1953, 302.

‘In “Hebrew Learning among the Fathers”, DCB IT, 859a.

> P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, London 1959, 158.

* R. P. G. Hanson, “Interpretation of Hebrew Names in Origen”.

206 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

pseudepigraphical books.’ De Lange maintains that Origen’s contact
with his Jewish teachers was frequent and intensive in Caesarea. This
enabled him to know Jewish exegetical traditions and rabbinic
hermeneutics.* Still according to De Lange, Origen was interested in
Hebrew but could neither read nor write it easily, although he had
the good fortune to have Jewish friends who helped him in his task.’

Recently, 8. P. Brock has insisted that we cannot judge Origen’s
work from our modern criteria of textual criticism. Origen knew
more Hebrew than appears at first glance, but his perspective is
different from ours. He is more interested in a synchronic vision of
the language for apologetic purposes; hence his work does not reflect
all the Hebrew that he knows.’ Nor can the absence of a histori-
cal perspective in his reflections on biblical Greek be cited as an
indication of his lack of knowledge of Hebrew. M. Harl has noted
how Origen comments on all the difficult passages of the Bible with-
out relinquishing the Greek system and without resorting to all the
possible Hebraisms or Aramaisms of translation Greek. The fact that
he does not use Hebrew to explain these passages does not mean
that he did not know it, but shows that he respects the obscurity of
the text, probably because it favoured his tendency for allegorical
and not literal explanation.'!

b) The Hexapla

The Names

The names most used by Eusebius and Epiphanius for Origen’s work
are to anh, to. tetpondc. In later authors, the singular 16 e€andodv,
tetpardodyv is used with equal frequency. As it is composed of six
columns (oeAt8es), in Origen’s writings it is also called 1d tEacéhadov,
vw tetpacéAtbov.'* Origen himself never speaks of Hexapla and
Tetrapla, although these terms are used by Eusebius and Epiphanius.

* G. Bardy, “Les traditions juives”, especially pp. 226-29.

® N. de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 29-37 and 133-35.

*N. de Lange, Ongen and the Jews, 22: “We shall not be far from the truth if
we conclude that Origen could not speak or read Hebrew, but that he was fortu-
nate in having acquaintances who did, and who gave him such help as he demanded.”

'© §, P. Brock, “Origen’s Aims as a Textual Critic”. G. Sgherri, “A proposito di
Origene”, also defends Origen’s considerable but not profound knowledge of Hebrew.

"M. Harl, “Origéne et la sémantique du langage biblique”.

2B, Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, IX~XIIL, as against the Hexaplaric
manuscripts, which only contained the Septuagintal edition, which he called Grad.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 207

For the latter the Tetrapla included an edition of the first two columns
of Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX and Theodotion; when these were
accompanied by the first two columns plus the Hebrew text, they
formed the Hexapla.'* However, against this is the testimony of
Eusebius, according to whom they were called Hexapla because they
contained six Greek translations as well as the two Hebrew columns.'*

In fact the Tetrapla, mentioned frequently in scholia and by eccle-
siastical writers, refers to the four best-known Greek versions cited
by Epiphanius. However, Mercati insists that it was not simply a
Hexapla without the first two columns but included many other
changes, and for confirmation refers to the same passage of Eusebius
according to whom after the first column (LXX) were placed the
other three Jewish versions in a trial run, before the Hexapla was
started, in order to assist Christians in studying the Old Testament.’
Contrary to the common view, which considers the Tetrapla as a
later, simplified edition of the Hexapla, Nautin maintains that Origen
began his work on the text for the Tetrapla which he compiled in
Alexandria before the production of the Hexapla in Caesarea."

First Orlinsky and later Barthélemy have begun to doubt the very
existence of the Tetrapla as a separate work from the Hexapla. In
fact it is strange that no remains of them have been preserved,
whereas fragments of the Hexapla and the LXX corrected against
the Hexaplaric recension have survived.'”

8 Epiphanius, De mens. et ponderibus, 19: tetpank& yap ta “EAAnvixé, Stov ot tod
*AcbAa Koi Loppcyov Koi tHv of’ Kai Oeodotimvoc Eppeveion ovytetaypéva dor
tv tecotipav Sé tobtev cedidwv Taig Suci taic “EBpaixaic cvvagbeiwdy sonka
xoAeitat (“So that the Tetrapla are the Greek [columns] when the versions by
Aquila, Symmachus, LXX [72] and Theodotion are placed together. When to these
four are joined the two in Hebrew they are called the Hexapla”).

‘+ Eusebius, Hist. Eee. VI, 16: tobtas 62 dnéoag |i.c. & 0’ 8 0’ &’ 7] éxi tadtov
cuvayayahy, SieAdv te npdg K@Aov kal Gvtinapabsic GAANAaG wetd Kai adtfic thc
“EBpaiov onperdoeng t& tHv Acyopévey “E€ankOv hiv vavtiypapa. KotahéAomev
(“Putting all these [versions] together in the same folio, dividing them up into clauses
and comparing them with each other and even with the Hebrew signs, he bequeathed
to us the manuscripts of what are known as the Hexapla”).

G. Mercati, “Il problema della Colonna seconda”, 212{f; see also Eusebius,
Hist. Fee. V1, 16, following on from the passage quoted in the previous note: idiag
thy “AkbAov cal Loppdyou Kai Oeodotiovos ExSocw Ec tH tov “EPdoyurtjxovta év
wig tetpuscois émoxevésas (“Arranging the edition of Aquila, Symmachus and
‘Theodotion in a special way, together with the Septuagint in the Tectrapia”).

16 P. Nautin, Origine, 342-43.

7 H. M. Orlinsky, “Origen’s Tetrapla: A Scholarly Fiction?”, and D. Barthélemy,
“Origéne et fe texte de Ancien Testament”, who connected the term tetpacooig
in the quotation by Eusebius with the expression tpisod. Kai tetpacod by Eusebius,

208 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

The Pentapla is mentioned once in the Codex Marchalianus for Is.
3:24 (ob« Exewto év 1 nevtaceAt6). Unless it has been confused
with the Tetrapla, it would have to be understood as the four best-
known Greek versions together with the Hebrew text, since no trace
of the quinia is to be found in the book of Isaiah. The name Heptapla,
which occurs in a superscription to the Syro-Hexaplaric version at
4 Kgs 16:2, seems to include the quinia, as its readings are common
in these books. The Octapla is mentioned in the Syro-Hexapla of
the book of Job and in some Greck scholia to the book of Psalms,
but apparently it means the same as the Hexapla, given that the
Psalms often have readings from the gquinta and sexta."

The composition of the Hexapla

In his commentary on the gospel of Matthew, Origen refers to the
condition of the text of the Greek Bible as it reached him and the
procedure he adopted to restore it. The text he inherited was cor-
rupt in various ways duc to the carelessness of some scribes, the bad
intentions of others and the nonchalance of those who added or
omitted as they felt inclined.'® In fact, from very early on the LXX
had been revised in various ways. Also, the LXX differed consider-
ably from the Hebrew text in the titles and distribution of the books
and in the length and arrangement of matcrial in some of them,
such as Samuel-Kings, Job, Jeremiah, Daniel, Esther, ctc. Today,
through the pre-Hexaplaric papyri, we can determine how different
it was from the text that reached Origen’s hands.”

The way Origen addressed these divergences from the Hebrew
text and among the manuscripts themselves was to compare the text
of the LXX with the text of the other Greek editions (Aquila,
Symmachus, Theodotion and others) and to retain it where they
agreed. To mark the divergences he placed some obeluses (+ indi-
cating spurious or not authentic) before those words or phrases of

Vit. Const. IV, 37 which refers to the Bibles in three or four volumes (or in tripli-
cate, quadruplicate) but not “in three or four columns {or Tetrapla)”.

' See chapter 10, pp. 157 and 159.

'" Origen, Comm. in Math, XV, 14: moAAi yéyovev h tdv cvttypcqov Siapopé,
elte and pabvpias twHv tov ypagéwv, elite dnd TOALNS tivév HoxOnpas . .. cite Kai
dnd tOv ta bavtoig SoKodvta év th Siopbdcer 7 xpootiBévtwv | cparpobvtov
(“There was a large difference in the manuscripts, due to negligence by the scribes,
to the perverse boldness of others... or even to those who add or omit what they
like when they correct”).

* See chapter 12, pp. 195-96.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 209

the LXX missing from the Hebrew text; and an asterisk (%) before
those words or phrases missing from the LXX but found in the other
Greck editions in agreement with the Hebrew."' In the Letter to
Africanus he expresses the primarily apologetic aim of his work: so
that in discussion with Jews, Christians do not quote passages not
to be found in their Scriptures and so that Christians, in turn, could
also use what was to be found in Jewish manuscripts even though
not in their own.”

We do not know for certain when he composed the Hexapla. It
is assumed that he began collecting material during his time in
Alexandria and had already finished it in Caesarea. In writing his
Commentary to Matthew (249) and in his Letter to Africanus (c.
240) as we have just seen, he already mentions his edition which
included asterisks and obcluses. From analysis of the biblical quota-
tions in Origen’s commentaries, Rahlfs draws the following conclu-
sions regarding the chronology of the Hexapla: Hexaplaric quotations
occur in the Letter to Africanus, in Contra Celsum and in some un-
specified material. Non-Hexaplaric quotations occur in the Commen-
tarics on John, Exodus, Isaiah and Matthew. Although critical studies
must have started much earlier, in Alexandria even, the mass of
Hexaplaric production must be dated between 235 and 245. The non-
Hexaplaric quotations in works from Origen’s last years, such as

2) Origen, Comm. in Malth. XV, 14: thy uév obv év toig dvtiypdgorg tig mates
Srabhing Stagaviow Geod S:5dvt0g etipopev idcacbar, kprmpia xpnodpevor taic
Roinaic exSdceow- tév yap &noiPoAAoLEévaV napa toig “EBSoutjKovta Sie thy tav
avitypapov Siage@vicy thy Kpiow nomodpevot dnd tOv Aomdv éExSdceav 10 ovve-
Sov éxeivarg éovadctapev, kal twa piv dBedtoapev <ac> ev tO ‘EBpoiks ph
Ketpeva (od ToAuicavtes adts n&vtn mepredciv), tive dé pet’ dotepioxev
xpooeOixapev, ive Siihov 7 Stt wh Keiweva nape toig "EPSourKovta é« tHv Aoinov
éxSdceav svpPavas 1 ‘EBpaikd xpoceOhkapev (“With divine help we eventually
overcame the discrepancy of the Old Testament in the manuscripts using the other
editions as a criterion. And we decided on the doubtful matters of the LXX by
means of the disagreement of the manuscripts from the other editions, retaining
what is in agreement with them. And some things we obelised because they do not
occur in Hebrew [not daring to remove them completely] and others we added
with an asterisk in order to make clear that, as they do not occur in the LXX, we
added them from the other editions in agreement with the Hebrew”).

” Origen, Ep. ad Af. 5.: ‘Aoxodpev 58 ph ayvoeiv Koi tig map’ éxetvorg: Yva
mpdg ‘Tovdatovg SiAcyopevor, wh xpopép@pev adtoig ta pi Kelpevo. ev toig dvt-
ypdmotg adtdv, Kai iva. ovyypnodpela toig pepopévoic nap’ exeivorc: ei Kai év
Tis Tpetéporg od Kettor BiPAtots (“And we make an effort not to ignore the ones
belonging to them; so that when we converse with the Jews, we do not quote to
them what is not found in their manuscripts, and so that we can use what they
{in turn] show even though not found in our books”).

210 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN ‘TRADITION

those in the Commentary on Matthew, have to be interpreted in
the light of his view, as expressed in the Letter to Africanus, that
the Hexapla was only an instrument for disputes with the Jews and
not for church use.

Ancient writers agree about the arrangement of the columns in
the following sequence: Hebrew text, transliteration into Greck, Aquila,
Symmachus, LXX and Theodotion. For the various forms of the
asterisks and obeluses used in Hexaplaric manuscripts, see Field and
Swete.”?

However, the Aristarchian signs, taken from Alexandrian philol-
ogy when the Homeric texts were edited, are far too simple to trans-
mit accurately all the corrections that Origen inserted into the text.
In fact they could only be used to mark additions and omissions. In
the book of Proverbs he uses a combination of asterisk and obelus
(+ / ® +) to mark a transposition for here, unlike the other books,
he keeps to the LXX sequence. However, he had no suitable signs
to indicate any other set of changes. It is therefore correct to con-
sider as Origen’s corrections all the specifically Hexaplaric readings
even though not marked with asterisks and obeluses.

Later history and the impact of the Hexapla

The enormous work of the Hexapla was probably never copied out
again completely given the sheer size of such a reference work and
the cost it would entail.* However the successors of Origen, Eusebius
and Pamphilus circulated copies of the corrected LXX, and Caesarea
soon became a publishing centre that made multiple copies of the
restored exemplars. Around 330, Constantine assigned fifty copies
(copdétie) in parchment to Eusebius to distribute to his churches.”

Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, LII-LX, and H. B. Swete, An Introduction
to the old Testament in Greek, 69-73.

4 Tt is estimated that they covered about fifty volumes or codices (see F, Field,
Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XCVIMI1). Origen’s way of working, surrounded by
co-workers and many stenographers, is described by Eusebius in Hist. Eee. VI, 23,
Iff. Barthélemy (“Origéne et le texte de Ancien Testament”, 255) even wonders
whether Origen really was the author of the Hexapla and not instead the coordi-
nator or supervisor of the work. According to Barthélemy this would comprise an
enormous dossier of data collected by Origen’s assistants, a dossier which he anno-
tated as is indicated in several colophons to Hexaplaric manuscripts, which he used
for reference in preparing his own critical edition of the LXX, with asterisks and
obeluses, called the Origenic or Hexaplaric recension or Hexapla.

® Eusebius, Vit. Const. IV, 36.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 211

Proof of this publishing activity and the early circulation of the fifth
column (= LXX) separately, corrected and furnished with diacritic
signs, i.e. Origen’s recension, is provided by: ms. Colbertinus-Sarravianus
(G, 4th/5th centuries) although with neither colophon nor marginal
notes of “the three”; the colophons of Codex Marchalianus (Q., 6th cen-
tury) at the beginning of Ezekiel and Isaiah; and the corrector of
Sinaiticus (S°, 7th century) at the end of the book of Esther. From
comparison of these colophons it can be deduced that the work of
textual criticism continued in Caesarea, along the lines begun by
Origen, of restoring an eclectic text.”

Even fifty years after its composition, Jerome could study copies
of the Hexapla in Caesarea.’ And in 616, Paul of Tella translated
into Syriac the LXX edition of the Hexapla, corrected and with
Aristarchian signs.” Finally, in 638 Caesarea fell into the hands of
the Arabs, not by sack or destruction but by the purchase of its
citizens. From then on we have no further information about the
Hexapla; furthermore, until the end of the 19th century it was thought
that only the Hexaplaric recension had survived — i.e. the fifth col-
umn corrected and edited by Pamphilus and Eusebius, as repro-
duced in manuscripts of the Origen recension — and only sporadic
variants from other columns.” Not until 1896, in palimpsest 0.39
of the Ambrosian Library of Milan, were fragments of the Hexapla
to the Psalms discovered by G. Mercati, and in 1897, Burkitt and
Taylor published a manuscript that contains Aquila’s version of 1 Kgs
20:7-17 and 2 Kegs 23:12-27. Finally, in 1900, among material from
the Cairo Genizah, Taylor identified fragments of the Hexaplaric
Psalm 22(21).°

26 See E, Ulrich, “The Old Testament Text of Eusebius: The Heritage of Origen”,
Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. H. W. Atiridge and G, Hata, Leiden 1992,
543-62.

27 F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, XCIX.

% For the history of the Syro-Hexaplar, sce S. Jellicoe, SMS, 124-27. Recent
discoveries and studies to be added are W. Baars, New Syro-hexaplaric Texts, Leiden
1968; A. Védbus, The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla; Very Important Discoveries for Septuagint
Research, Stockholm 1971; Védbus, “The Discovery of the Pentateuch of the Syro-
Hexapla”, JAOS 93 (1973), 354-55; M. H. Goshen Gottstein, “Neue Syrohexapla-
fragmente”, Bib 37 (1956), 162-83. This can be supplemented by the most recent
bibliography in BS 305~306.

»” See E. Schwartz, “Zur Geschichte der Hexapla”.

For the work by Mercati, sec Select Bibliography. F. C. Burkitt and C. ‘Taylor, Frag-
ments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila, Cambridge 1987, and
C. Taylor, Hebrew~Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor—Schechter Collection Includ-
ing a Fragment of the Twenty-second Psalm According to Origen’s Hexapla, Cambridge 1900.

212 THE SEPTUAGINT IN GHRISTIAN TRADITION

With these surviving witnesses of the Hexapla, even if fragmen-
tary, our information about them from ancient sources has been
confirmed in some respects and corrected in others.

The fragment from the Cairo Genizah contains Ps. 22:15-18,
20-28; it does not preserve any remains of the first column (Hebrew
text); instead it transmits some fragments of the secunda, the third
and the fourth (Aquila and Symmachus) almost completely, part of
the fifth (LXX) and none of the sixth. Perhaps the manuscript con-
tained the whole Psalter; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion all
have the Tetragrammaton written as TIMI.

The Milan palimpsest contains all the columns (five in all) except
the Hebrew text; underneath, the continuous LXX text and then a
catenary text.” It is made up of thirteen fragments with a total of
151 verses from different psalms, from 17 to 88. It is more likely to
be a condensed Hexapla, with one column left out, than an extended
Tetrapla.”

The importance of the details in this description of the manu-
script is the repercussions they have on our knowledge of the Hexapla.
Tn fact, before this find, we only knew it from information in Origen,
Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc.; from corrected manuscripts that
contained the Origen recension (some of them supplied with colophons
and Aristarchian signs) and from isolated readings of “the three” in
the margins of manuscripts and quotations by the Fathers.*

Now for the first time we have at our disposal lengthy, continuous
texts of “the three” and remains of the Hexapla as the ancient authors
described it. The main results can be summarised as follows:

1. The traditional order of secunda, third (Aquila) and fourth (Sym-
machus) columns is confirmed.

3 See G. Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli reliquiae in the introduction. For the catenae, see
infra, chapter 19.

® For several reasons: first we can ask ourselves whether ‘l'etrapla existed of
which nothing has been preserved. If they did exist, it is doubtful whether columns
would have been arranged in the same way as in the Hexapla. And finally, it is
unlikely that the amanuensis would have uscd some Hexapla to attach the second
transliterated column to the Tetrapla.

* For the new Hexaplaric material recovered after Vield’s edition through the
publication of manuscripts, commentaries by the Fathers and catenae, see D. Barthélemy,
Critique textuelle de UAncien Testament. Tome 3, Fribourg—Gottingen 1992, CLX~GLXL
On the projected new edition of the Hexaplaric fragments, see A. Salvesen (ed.)
Onigen’s Hexapla and Fragments, 439-49.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 213

2. The old supposition that the Hexapla was never copied out again
has been corrected. We have at least witnesses of copies of a
shorter Hexapla or perhaps complete copies in certain books.

3. In the fifth column of the Milan palimpsest there is no trace of
any diacritical signs.

4. However, no doubt the biggest surprise is that the last column of
the palimpsest does not contain Theodotion, as was thought, but
the quinta (e’). This fact gives ground for suspecting the authen-
ticity of the attributions in other books: we do not know whether
the anonymous author whom Origen placed in the sixth column
of the Hexapla was always the same from Genesis until the end,
or whether he really was Theodotion.*

Since the fragments cited by Theodoret of Cyr in Psalms as belong-
ing to Theodotion are from the quina, there is no doubt that already
in the first half of the 5th century, perhaps earlier, schematic Hexaplaric
psalters were known with the omission of one column, such as
Theodotion, as in this case. There is also the possibility that the
Hexapla circulated not only without the first two columns (which
were enigmatic to Christian copyists who did not know Hebrew) but
also without one or other of the versions.

c) The Fifth Column of the Hexapla and the secunda

The two most discussed problems in Hexaplaric research concern
these two columns. As for the first, we are still asking ourselves which
text Origen put in the LXX column. Was it corrected or uncor-
rected, with or without Aristarchian signs?

As there are no signs at all in the palimpsest, Mercati thinks that
Theodotion inserted the common LXX in the fifth column, only
slightly corrected according to the manuscripts he had available, and
with neither asterisks nor obeluses.* Kahle, Lietzmann, Procksch,

of variants in Hexaplaric manuscripts. The result was overwhelmingly positive in
favour of the guinla. He examined three independent collections of readings: the
marginal readings of ms. 264 of Holmes~Parsons; those in Vat. Graec, 754 and those
of the Syro-Hexapla for the Psalter. ‘The three controls used confirm that the read-
ings of the last column of the palimpsest belong to the quinta (see G. Mercati, Psalterit
Hexapli reliquiae 1, XIX).

3 There are several reasons: The Septuagintal text of the palimpsest is Alexandrian,

214 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Pretzl and others agree with Mercati. However, in favour of the
signs are such notable authorities in textual criticism of the LXX as
Field, Brock, Soisalon-Soininen and Bo Johnson. There are weighty
reasons both for and against this supposition.?’ Those favouring the
existence of signs refer to the witness of Origen himself in the
Commentary on Mt. 15:14 and to Jerome’s testimony in his pro-
logue to the book of Chronicles.* Field, an expert in Hexaplaric
readings, adds: “In scholiis graecis innumera exstant loca, quae con-
trarium aperte probent.”*? This means that the edition of the LXX-
Hexaplaric column was no different from the text edited separately
and with signs, like the one known from Sarravianus.” However, in
view of the transpositions in Exodus 36-39 and Jeremiah 25-51, I
do not see how Origen could have operated without great changes.
The supporters of signs also insist that perhaps the Hexaplaric copy
of the Ambrosian is late, is of a single book and does not really
reflect the original Hexapla. S. Brock holds that the arguments against
Field are not completely convincing.’ Some of the reasons against
the insertion of diacritic signs in the Hexapla are as follows: they
have been found in the palimpsest from the Ambrosian; Mercati
insists that the signs were not needed as the texts with their differences
could be seen synoptically; and Field provides no actual examples
to support his hypothesis. To this the supporters of the signs reply
that, although specific quotations are missing, the long years of
research :by Field on Hexaplaric material give his statements great

nearly always in agreement with B, even though there is no good edition of the
Psalms. ‘The transpositions and signs would have created great confusion for the
reader. Added to this is the actual difficulty of locating them and filling in the gaps
and at the same time keeping in parallel with the other columns. Lastly, it seems
more correct to use the inherited koiné of a mixed text for the comparison, (G. Mercati,
Pralterti: Hexapli retiguiae 1, XXXIVIM).

* J. Soisalon-Soininen, Der Charakter der asterisierten Zusétze in der Septuagitna, Helsinki,
1959, 197, and B. Johnson, Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der Septuaginta,
Lund 1963, 144.

* Some of them can be consulted in H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament
in Greek, 77-78.

% Jerome, Prologus... in libro Paralipomenon: “sed quod majoris audaciae est, in
editione LXX 'Theodotionis editionem miscuit, asteriscis designans quae minus ante
fuerant, et virgulis quae ex superfluo videbantur apposita”.

” FB, Pield, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, LIL.

* An example can be seen in H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in
Greek, 73.

" See 8. P. Brock, ‘The Recensions of the LXX Version of f Samuel, Turin 1996, 39-42.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 215

weight; and that the diacritic signs could have disappeared in the
course of transmission, as happened in other cases.

The other problem that has attracted much attention is that of
the Hexaplaric secunda because of the many questions of all kinds
raised by this Hebrew text transliterated into Greek.” On the pos-
sibilities that Origen himself composed it we have already spoken
above in connection with his knowledge of Hebrew. In the event
that he took it from earlier Jewish synopscs“* and incorporated it
later into the Hexapla, another problem arises: is it a text specially
prepared for the Hexapla, which therefore reflects the pronunciation
of Hebrew in the 3rd century CE, or did Hebrew texts transliterated
into Greek for liturgical or didactic purposes circulate previously
among the Jews? And connected with this, an additional problem:
are the transcriptions of the secunda uniform throughout the Hexapla,
as Mercati believes, or are they different precisely because they come
from different layers, as Sperber has explaincd?

The transcriptions of the secunda are one of the pillars on which
F. X. Wutz constructed his theory of the origins of the LXX from
an intermediate text transliterated into Greek. We have already scen,
when we explained his theory,"* how the hypothesis of a change of
script to Greek remains, in Mercati’s opinion, a probable conjecture
until the period of the secunda (around 235 cE). Even so, P. Kahle
opposes Mercati and continues to defend the existence of transliter-
ated Hebrew texts before Origen.® However, if these translitcrations
were so widespread among the Hellenistic Jews ~ Mercati argues —
it is surprising that no fragment has been found apart from the

” There has been an increase in the number of studies since the Milan palimpsest
was discovered; see O. Eissfeldt, “Zur Textkritischen Auswertung der Mercatischen
Hexapla-Fragmente”, WO 1 (1947-52), 93-97 = KS TH, Tibingen 1966, 9~13.

® As P. Nautin, Origéne, 339, thinks.

* See chapter 4. Besides F. X. Wutz, the following defended the existence of
texts transliterated into Greek before the Hexapla: L. Blau, “La transcription de
PAT en charactéres grecs”, REF 88 (1929), 18-22; A. Sperber, “Hebrew Based
upon Greek and Latin Transliterations”; W. E. Staples, “The Hebrew of the
Septuagint”, AFSL 44 (1927-28), 6-30; J. Halévy, “L’origine de a transcription”,
and M. Ginsburger, “La transcription de PAT”.

* P. Kahle, “The Greek Bible Manuscripts Used by Origen”. He bases this on
the beginning of the homily on Easter by Melito of Sardis (¢. 168 CE), which says:
H nev ypaph thc “EBpaixiic “E&d80u cvéyvooton kai ta Phyata tob pootnpiov
diacecdkenta (The Scripture of the Hebrew Exodus is read and the words of the
mystery are explained) (B. Lohse, Die Passa-Homilie des Bischofs Meliton von Sardes,
Leiden 1958, 11}. See also G. Zuntz, “On the Opening Sentence of Melito’s Paschal
Homily”, HTR 36 (1943), 299-315.

216 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Origen tradition, whereas codices of the Aramaic Targum from north
and south Palestine, previously thought to be lost, are being recovered."
From the text of Melito of Sardis the most that can be deduced
is that the first Christians, following synagogal usage in the reading
from the Old Testament, had kept the reading of some pericopes in
the original Hebrew for special events. Finally, Emerton, while not
denying the possibility of this type of transcription before the Hexapla,
says that the data provided by its defenders, especially the rabbinic
passages quoted, do not prove that it existed.”

As for the purpose of the secunda — a topic closcly related to the
previous problems — it too has received no satisfactory explanation.
For Orlinsky, the purpose of the Hexapla (including the secunda) was
to provide Christians with a textbook for learning Hebrew, at a time
when it was increasingly difficult to find rabbis as teachers, as it
meant giving one’s opponent the best weapon for theological debate.’
However, it is difficult to think that such a lengthy work could have
had any other purpose than the textual-apologetic originally attested
by the sources.

Emerton’s hypothesis about the secunda as a vocalisation system
scems to be more likely and consistent:** in antiquity there were no
vocalised Hebrew texts; however the fact that with time a system of
pointing was devised shows that the need was felt for an aid to read-
ing. The secunda would be a lengthier system than those traditionally
known but it has the same purpose.” The Tiberian system became
the final form that the manuscripts adopted, but it was preceded by
a lengthy experimental history in Palestine and Babylonia. More like
the secunda is the system adopted by the Jacobite Syrians who wrote
Greek vowels above and below the Semitic consonants. Perhaps this
procedure occurred to Origen or to one of his predecessors and was
rejected in favour of transliteration as it was considered undignified

7 J, A. Emerton, “Were Greek ‘Transliterations of the Hebrew?”

* H. M. Orlinsky, “The Columnar Order of the Hexapla”.

” J. A. Emerton, “A Further Consideration of the Purpose of the Second Column”.

® Prior to the secunda, an attempt had already been made to use matres lectionis
(Cimmét ha-geriah), ic. the use of certain consonants to indicate vowels. Their use in
epigraphic Hebrew is very ancient; they occur, for example, in the 8th century BcE
Siloam Inscription and in the 7th century sce Lachish Ostraca. They are used very
widely in biblical manuscripts from the period of textual fluidity and in the Dead
Sea Scrolls; see F. Pérez Gastro, “La transmisién del texto del Antiguo Testamento
hebreo”, in F. Cantera and M. Iglesias, Sagrada Biblia. Version critica sobre los textos
hebreo, arameo y griego. Madrid 1979, XV-XXXVI1.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 217

to annotate the sacred text in this way. Emerton illustrates his hypoth-
esis with various analogies in the non-Jewish ancient world of translit-
erated texts, always in relation to another text, i.e. as an indication that
the transliterations were connected in some way with pronunciation.
The secunda therefore claimed to make it possible for those who knew
the Hebrew language and alphabet fo vocalise consonantal texts.

The secunda and the pronunciation of pre-Masoretic Hebrew.’

For few matters is it so important as this to make a distinction
between the facts and the theories built upon those facts. The facts
basically derived from the secunda of the Hexapla to the psalms in
the Milan palimpsests are as follows:

1. b'gadk‘fat: for the double pronunciation (occlusive and fricative) of
these Hebrew consonants, the secunda only transcribes x//@ for
k/p/t with gemination, y%/pp/88, which is irregular in Greek,
whereas the LXX preserves transliterations with «/n/t for the
same phonemes and regular Greck gemination of xy/np/18, accord-
ing to the law of dissimilation of aspirates. The secunda instead
uses /t/ specifically for /t/ and /x/ for /g/. However, precisely
because of this specialisation of the different phonemes, the data
from transliterations are in themselves not enough to prove that
aspirates werc fricative in 3rd century ce Hebrew.

2. The laryngcals 8, , 7 and Mi are not indicated by Greek conso-
nants. However the inadequacy of the Greek alphabet to repro-
duce these Hebrew sounds is even greater in this case than for
the b’gadk‘fat letters. Thus Origen’s non-translitcration of these con-
sonants in the secunda is not an indication that they were not pro-
nounced in Hebrew in his time. It is not clear whether or nor
they were indicated in the stage of language reproduced by the
LXX. Although the laryngeals are not represented in Greek by

“| The bibliography is enormous. Here are some of the main titles: E. A. Speiser,
“The Pronunciation of Hebrew”; O. Pretzl, “Die Aussprache des Hebraischen”;
A. Sperber, “Hebrew Based upon Greek”; P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, London 1959;
F. X. Wutz, Spstematische Wege von der LXX zum hebriiischen Urtext I, Suuttgart 1937;
F. Pérez Castro, “Problemas del hebreo premasorético”; E. Bronno, Studien zur
vormasoretischen Morphologie, F. X. Wutz., Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu
Hieronymus, Stuttgart 1, 1925; HU, 1933; J. Barr, “St Jerome and the Sounds of
Hebrew”, JSS 12 (1967), 1-36; G. Mercati, “Il problema della Colonna seconda”;
E. Brenno, “Samaritan Hebrew and Origen’s Secunda”; Mercati, “Zu den ‘Theorien
Paul Kahies von der Entstehung der Tiberischen Grammatik”, ZDMG 100 (1950),
521-65, and G. Janssens, Studies in Hebrew Historical Linguistics.

218 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

consonants, nevertheless the accompanying vowels indicate their
presence.

3. As for the sibilants, the incompatibility between the two languages
is even greater. The } is transcribed by the ¢, but for the four
Hebrew phonemes 0 8 @ and W with differing pronunciations,
Greek only uses o.

4. The pronunciation of the vowels is more difficult to determine
from the secunda, as in the Semitic languages the consonants form
the skeleton of the spoken chain with a strong pronunciation
whereas the vowels are more fluid. The beginnings of Hebrew
vocalisation go back at most to the 6th century cE, and their
crystallisation into the Tiberian system cannot be earlier than the
end of the 8th century. The medium available to Origen in Greek
for reproducing Hebrew vowels was weakened somewhat duc to
the shifts produced by iotacism within the system. However, in
spite of the gradual disappearance of vowel quality and in spite
of iotacism, the overall conclusion is that in the secunda the qual-
ity of vowels with an ¢/o timbre is indicated. The games, except
for a few unimportant cases, can be accepted as long in the time
of Origen. The patah in stressed open syllables is not differenti-
ated from games. Before semi-vowels and laryngeals it was short.
The segol is transcribed by a/e. For hireg gadol the transcription
is predominantly et. The holem is transcribed as 0. In other cases
the system cannot be determined.

The theories

On the basis of these data from the secunda, together with the tran-
scriptions of proper names in the LXX and in Jerome, theories have
been constructed that try to draw the most pretentious conclusions.
For example, A. Sperber compares the transcriptions in the Vatican
Codex and Codex Alexandrinus: according to him the Vatican reflects
an older pronunciation than the Hebrew. Codex Alexandrinus instead
reflects the transition towards the stage of the language reproduced
by the secunda. The secunda agrees in most of its transcriptions with
the system of Codex Alexandrinus, but often goes with the Vatican
Codex. From this Sperber deduces that the secunda does not have a
uniform and contemporaneous text. On the basis of these tran-
scriptions he tries to write a grammar and a dictionary of pre-
Masoretic Hebrew. From the differences in pronunciation between
the Masoretic and non-Masoretic forms he deduces that there were

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 219

two schools of pronunciation of Hebrew in the kingdoms of Judah
and Israel, the respective seats of these dialectal differences. The
Tiberian system reflects the pronunciation of Judaea and the non-
Tiberian sources reflects the Israclite pronunciation. Other differences
emerge when comparing the Masoretic Pentateuch (Judaean) with
the Samaritan Pentateuch (Israelite).>* Kahle instead insists that in
the secunda the laryngeals were not pronounced as consonants. However,
in the LXX from the transcription of proper names we know that
they were indicated by a helping vowel or by a prefixed e/1.™
According to him, the Masorctes artificially restored the pronuncia-
tion of the gutturals due to the influence of Arabic and Syriac.

E. Bronno has severely criticised Kahle’s thesis and indirectly
Sperber’s theories. From the fact that the laryngeals are not expressed
in the secunda it cannot be concluded that they did not exist or were
not pronounced in its Vorlage, for account has to be taken of the
unsuitability of the Greek alphabet for representing them. According
to Bronno, laryngeals are not indicated in the LXX cither. The
examples proposed by Kahle are sporadic and could have been due
to contamination. In any case it is suspicious that most of the exam-
ples with prothetic zfa occur after a word ending in zola, as they
could have arisen from inner-Greek corruption. Bronno places stress
on vocalism: the secunda has a unique position in the history of
Hebrew, for it uses different vowels for short and long e/e sounds.
He criticises Sperber for completely ignoring vowel quality and for
arranging the forms arbitrarily, especially the segholates.

In summary, in connection with the use in the secunda and in
general of Greek transliterations to reconstruct the pronunciation of
pre-Masoretic Hebrew, there has been a move from initial euphoria

® A. Sperber, “Hebrew Based upon Greek”, and Sperber, A Historical Grammar
of Biblical Hebrew, Leiden 1966.

58 For example: Aepvov for ’arnén Jer. 31(48):20 A
Anhaw for ‘lam 1 Chron. 8:24 A
Tayeipov for ’ahirém Num. 26:42(38) B
Tocov for “sem Josh. 19:3 B

Similarly, 2 and ‘ had different pronunciations when the LXX was translated.
See:

Topoppa. for ‘amor Gen. 10:1 9ff
Tafa for azza Gen. 10:19ff
Xoppatog for hort Gen. 14:6 A

P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 165.
34 E. Bronno, “Zu den Theorien Paul Kahles von der Entstehung der tiberischen
Grammatik”.

220 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

(represented principally by Sperber, Wutz and Kahle) towards a posi-
tion of complete reserve (reflected in the publications of Bronno,
Mercati and Barr). Applying a more modern linguistic approach,
Barr insists that the transliterations do not open the way directly to
the pronunciation of Hebrew but are at most an interpretation con-
ditioned by the phonemic systems of Greck and Latin. Jerome, for
example, probably transmitted to us at times a single graphic repro-
duction of two allophonic realisations. Contrary to the opinion of
Kahle and particularly of Sperber, it seems that Jerome’s material
can be interpreted in a sense that is much closer to the Masoretic
structure of Hebrew than had been thought until recently. And the
recent study by Brenno points in the same direction.”

SeLEct BistioGRaPHy

Origen and the Hexapla

Bammel, C. P., “Die Hexapla des Origenes: die hebraica veritas im Streit der
Meinungen”. Augustinianum 28 (1988), 125-49.

Bardy, G., “Les citations bibliques d’Origéne dans le ‘De principiis’”. RB 16 (1919),
106 35.

vom, G., “Les traditions juives dans l‘ocuvre d’Origéne”. RB 34 (1925), 21752.

Barthélemy, D., “Origéne et le texte de ’Ancien Testament”. Epektasis, Mélanges J.
Daniélou II, Paris 1972, 247-61.

Bietenhard, H., Caesarea, Origenes und die Juden, Stuttgart 1974,

Brock, 8. P, “Orige n’s Aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament”, Studia
Palristica, X, Berlin 1970, 215-18.

Caloz, M., Biudes sur la LXX origénienne du Psautier, Fribourg-Gottingen 1978.

Cox, C. E, Hexaplaric Materials Preserved in the Armenian Version, Atlanta, Ga. 1986.

Dorival, G., “L’apport des chaines exégétiques grecques a une réédition des Hexaples
@Origéne {a propos du Psaume 118)”. RHT 4 (1974), 45-74.

Dorival, G., and A. Le Boulluec, Origeniana Sexta, Leuven 1995.

Field, I, Onigenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt [, Oxford 1875, XLVI~-LXXXIII.

Hanson, R. P. G., “Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Origen”. VC 10 (1956),
oe 23,

Harl, M., “Origéne et la sémantique du langage biblique”. VC 26 (1972), 161-87.

jellepe, S., SMS, 100-127.

Klosterman, E., “Formen der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes”. TLZ 72 (1947),
203208.

Lange, N. R. M. de, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-
century Palestine, Cambridge 1978.

° G. Mercati ends his article on “I problema della Colonna seconda” by not-
ing that even if it was proved for certain that the transliteration in the secunda was
faithful, he would not print it as a reconstruction of 3rd century CE Hebrew, being
aware of the very many doubts and problems it would raise.

® J. Barr, “St Jerome and the Sounds of Hebrew”.

* E. Brenno, Die Aussprache der hebréixchen Laryngale nach Zeugnissen des Hieronymus,
Arbus 1970, with F. Corriente’s review in Sefarad 33 (1973), 158-62.

ORIGEN’S HEXAPLA 221

Nautin, P., Origéne. Sa vie ef son oewwre, Paris 1977, 303-61.

Neuschaler, B., Origenes als Philologe, Basle 1987.

Norton, G. ‘5 Jautionary Reflecions on a Re-edition of Fragments of Hexaplaric
Material”. Tradition of the Text, 1991, 129-55.

J: “Jews, Greeks, and the Hexapla of Origen”. The Aramaic Bible, ed.

D.R.G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, Sheffield 1994, 400-419.

“Bibelcitate bei Origenes”. ZNIW 4 (1903), 67-74.

rigenes Zitate aus den Kénigsbiichern”. Septuaginta-Studien I, Gottingen
1904, fe a

Salvesen, A }, Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments, Viibingen 1998.

Schenker, a gine Psalmenbruchsticke. Die hexaplarische Psalmenfragmente der
Handschriflen Vaticanus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62, Fribourg-Géuingen
1975.

———~, A., Pratmen in der Hexapla. Erste kritische und voltstindige Ausgabe der hexaplart-
schen Fragmente auf dem Rande der Handschrift Ottobonianus graecus 398 zu den Ps
24-32, Rome (Vatican City) 1982.

Sgherri, G., “A proposito di Origene e¢ la lingua ebraica”. Augustinianum 14 (1974),
223-59.

an , G., “Sulla valutazione origeniana dei LXX”. Bib 58 (1977), 1-28.

Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 59-86.

Ulrich, E. C., “Origen’s Old Testament Text: The Transmission History of the
Septuagint of the Third Century C. E.” Origen of Alexandria: His World and his
Legacy, ed, C. Kannengiesser and W. L. Petersen, Notre Dame, Ind. 1988,
3-33.

‘The secunda

Brenno, E., “Samaritan Hebrew and Origen’s Secunda”. JSS 13 (1968), 193-201.
——., E., Studien zur vormasoretischen Morphologie und Vokalismus des Hebréischen auf
Grundlage der Mercatischen Fragmente der zweiten Kolumne der Hexapla des Origenes. 28,
Leipzig 1943.
E., “The Isaiah Scroll DSIa and the Greek TYransliterations of Hebrew”.
XDMG nf 31 (1956), 252-58.
Eissfeldt, O., “Zur Textkritischen Auswertung der Mercatischen Hexapla Frag-
mente”. WO 1 (1947), 93-97.
Emerton, J. A., “A Further Consideration of the Purpose of the Second Column
of the Hexapia”. F7S 22 (1971), 15-28.
-, J. A., “The Purpose of the Second Column of the Hexapla”. 77S 7 (1956),
79-87.
, J. A, “Were Greek Transliterations of the Hebrew Old Testament Used
by Jews before the Time of Origen?”. 77S 21 (1970), 17-31.
Ginsburger, M., “La transcription de ’AT en charactéres grecs”. REZ 87 (1929),
40-42; 88 (1929), 184-86.
Halevy, J., “L’origine de la transcription du texte hébreu en caractéres grecs dans
les Hexaples d’Origéne”. J4S EX, 17 (1901), 335-41; 18 (1962), 399-400.
Janssens, G., Studies in Hebrew Historical Linguistics Based on Ongen’s secunda, Leuven
1982.
Kahle, P., “The Greek Bible Manuscripts Used by Origen”. JBL 79 (1960), 111-18.
Mercati, G., “Il problema della Colonna seconda dell’Esaplo”. Bib 28 (1947), 1-30;
173-215.
; G., Psalterti Hexapli reliquiae, | Rome 1958; IE Osservaztoni, Rome 1965.
Orlinsky, H. M., “Origen’s Tetrapla: A Scholarly Fiction?”. Proceedings of the Firsi
World Congress of Javish Siudies, I, Jerusalem 1952, 173-82.
~—-, H. M., “The Columnar Order of the Hexapla”. JQR 27 (1936-37), 137-49.

222 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Sefarad 8 (1948), 148-54.

Perez Castro, F., “Problemas del hebreo premasoréti
eiten Kolumne der Hexapla

Pretzl, O., “Die Aussprache des Hebraischen nach der
des Origenes”. BZ 20 (1932), 4-22.

Saenz-Badillos, A., A History of the Hebrew Language, wanslated by J. Elwolde, Cambridge
1993, 80-86.

, A., “El hebreo del s. Il d.C. a la luz de las transcripciones griegas de
Aquila, Simmaco y Teodocién”. Sefarad 35 (1975), 107-30.

Schwarw, E., “Zur Geschichte der Hexapla”. NGWG6itt 6 (1903), 693-700.

Speiser, E. A., “The Pronunciation of Hebrew According to (Later: Based Chiefly
on) the Transliterations in the Hexapla”. JOR 16 (1925-26), 343-82; 23 (1933),
233-65; 24 (1934), 9-46,

Sperber, A., “Hebrew Based upon Greck and Latin ‘T'ransliterations”, HUCA 12/13
(1937-38), 103-274.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THE LUCIANIC RECENSION

a) Ancient Witnesses

Lucian was probably born in Samosata in Syria ¢. 250 ce. He stud-
ied in Edessa and Caesarea; then he went on to the famous school
of Antioch, its chief representatives being Chrysostom, Diodorus,
Theodoret of Cyr and Theodore of Mopsuestia.' A disciple of Paul
of Samosata and of the presbyter Malchion, for reasons that are not
quite clear he was for many years in the shade, cut off from Church
communion.’ Founder of the exegetical school of Antioch he took
Arius as one of his disciples.’ In his final years he returned to the
Church and died a martyr in Nicomedia under the emperor Maximian
(311-12).

Some have wondered whether the excommunicated Lucian is the
same as the scripture scholar. However, in spite of certain discrep-
ancies between the person and his literary work, it is not necessary
to conclude that they are two different persons. Cases are not rare
in antiquity where due to only part of their work being considered,
certain authors have made us think they are two different persons.*

His contemporaries speak of him as a qualified biblical scholar: he
knew Syriac as his mother tongue, Greek and perhaps some Hebrew
in view of the important Jewish colony in Antioch.° However, they
say nothing about his work of revising the Bible, his connection with
the Hexapla, and other details connected with his philological work.

' Eusebius, Hist. Kec. VI, 29-32; Jerome, De vir. illustribus, 71.

2 Theodoret, Hist. Ecc. 1,3: dnoouvayayds epewe tpidv émioxdnwv modvetod<s
ypdovov (“He remained expelled during the long period of three bishops”). However,
strictly speaking &noovvaywydg means “expelled from the synagogue”, see Jn 9:22.

5B, Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchen-viiter,
Freiburg—Basle-Vienna 1966, 214 and 190.

+B. M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible”, If, and
N. Fernandez Marcos, Los ‘Thaumata’ de Sofronio. Contribucién al estudio de la ‘Incubatio’
cristiana, Madrid 1975, 5-11.

° K. Treu, “Die Bedeutung des griechischen fiir die Juden im rémischen Reich”,
Kairos 17 (1975), 123-44.

294 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Jerome’s statements are too vague and contradictory for them to be
believed. In the text of the prologue to the book of Chronicles he
assigns the Lucianic exemplars to the region that extends from
Constantinople to Antioch, in contrast to the recension of Hesychius
and Origen.® In the Letter to Sunia and Fretela, he compares it with
the Hexapla and calls it common, vulgate or Lucianic, “the old edi-
tion corrupted according to the places, times and fancy of the writ-
ers”.’ And in the prologue to the evangelists dedicated to Damasus
he even despises the Lucianic codices, ignoring them since they lack
importance.’ The impression given is that Jerome’s judgement on
the Lucianic recension depends a great deal on whom he was writ-
ing to and is conditioned by an interest in praising his own Vulgate
translation into Latin.

Pseudo-Athanasius confuses the edition by Lucian with the septima
which we discussed above.’ Suidas (Lexicographus) even considers
his edition to have been a new translation from Hebrew.'° Lastly,
in the epilogue to several catenary manuscripts to the Octateuch,
after listing the other editions of the Greck Bible, there is a reference
to Lucian’s cdition, prepared for Christians and found in Nicomedia
under Constantine in a whitewashed marble wall (nvpyioK@).'!

® “Constantinopolis usque Antioquiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat”,
Prologus ....in libro Paralipomenon.

7 Ad Suniam et Fretelam, 2: “In quo illud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse
editionem, quam Origenes et Cacsariensis Eusebius, omnesque Gracciae tractatores
kowty, id est “communem” appellant atque ‘Vulgatam’, et a plerisque nunc Aov-
«tdvetog dicitur; aliam Septuaginta Interpretum, quae in &enAoig codicibus repper-
itur... Kowi autem ista, hoc est communis eclitia ipsa est quae et Septuaginta.
Sed hoc interest inter utramque, quod xoivi pro locis et temporibus, et pro vol-
untate scriptorum, vetus corrupta editio est.”

® In evangelistas ad Damasum praefatio: “Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et
Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio: quibus utique
nec in toto Veteri instrumento emendare quid licuit, nec in Nevo profuit emen-
da: cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata, doceat falsa esse quae
addita sunt” (PL 29, 527).

® See chapter 10: In the Synopsis sacr. script: £B56pun néAw Koi tedevtaia. Epunveta
tod éytov Aoviavod tod peyaAov d&omtod Kai paptopos (“Finally, the seventh and
last translation of St Lucian, the great ascetic and martyr”, PG 28, 436).

” Suda, s.v. Aouxievésg: AouKtovos 6 pdptosg... abtos intoag évarioBov éx ts
‘EBpaiSoc éxovevedouto yhatmes tiv Kal adthy cig th UdALoTa Ty AKpiBeKds, x6vov
th exovopOdcer nAeiotov siceveyképevos (“The martyr Lucian... returned per-
sonally to collect all [the Scriptures] in the Hebrew language in which he was quite
an expert and he renewed them, making the best attempt at restoration”).

" R. Devreesse, Introduction a Vétude des manuscrits grecs, Paris 1954, 119, n. 1: Hrig
&xSoo1g wet thy &BAnow Kai 1d paptbptov tod ayiov Aovxiavod, tig tod

THE LUCIANIC REGENSION 225

According to Barthélemy, this is a process of idealising the Lucianic
recension which even goes so far as to make it a new translation
from Hebrew. A contributory factor is that at a certain moment the
copyists began to interpret the sign lambda omicron (2) as Aovxiavoc,
when in fact it refers to ot Aoinot (“the other interpreters”),'?

The key to interpreting this siglum is found in an editorial note
that circulated after the 10th century in some manuscripts of Theodoret
of Cyr in his Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, published by
J. Phelipeau in 1630.'° After mentioning various Hexaplaric sigla that
appear in the manuscripts the copyist continued: év oig 88 td A,
ugcov Exov 76 0’, AovKiavod (“Those which have 4 with an omicron
in the middle, by Lucian”). Field speaks of Lucian in connection
with the Hexapla as is apparent from the following words: “Luciani
editio ad hexapla nostra non alio modo pertinet quam Hebraci, Syri
et Samaritani selectae lectiones, quas omnes non in opere Origenis
arquetypo per sex columnas descripto, sed in margine exemplarium
versionis tév o’ hexaplaris inclusas fuisse credibile est.”'*

Montfaucon always interpreted the siglum } as ot Aoixot. Field,
instead, after suppressing the name Lucian in most of his edition,
when he came across the siglum \ of the Syro-Hexapla to 2 Kgs
9:9, understood its real meaning, ie. Aovxtavdéc. This did not re-
move the ambiguity since by the working method of this exegete

AlokAntiavod Koi Mo&ynevod KatodnEéons povias ebpntor €& iStoxetpov yeypoupévy
év Nixoundeia. émi Kaotavtivov tod Bactéws nap ‘lovdaior év xupyiox@ pap-
papive wai xexoviapév@ (“That edition after the combat and martyrdom of St
Lucian, once the anger of Diocletian and Maximin had abated, was found written
in his handwriting in Nicomedia under Constantine in Jewish circles in a wall of
whitewashed marble”). The similarity of this account with the find of the guinta is
suspicious, see chapter 10, p. 156.

" D. Barthélemy, (unpublished) conference at Oxford in 1970. Some of these
ideas are included in D. Barthélemy, “‘Les problémes textuels de 2 Sam 11, 2-1
Rois 2, 11’ reconsidérés a la lumiére de certains critiques des ‘Devanciers d’Aquila’”,
1972 Proceedings IOSCS Pseudepigrapha, Missoula, Mont. 1972, 16-88, reprinted in
D. Barthélemy, Etudes d’histoire du texte de’Ancien Testament, Freiburg~Gottingen
1978, 21855, especially pp. 243-54. See also Dorrie’s reservations concerning the
Lucianic recension in “Zur Geschichte der LXX im Jahrhundert Konstantins”,
ANW 39 (1940), 57-110.

‘8 J. Phelipeau, Oseas primus inter Prophetas. Commentarius illustratus auctore Joanne
Phellippaeo Societatis Tesu, Paris 1630.

“FL Field, Onigenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, LXXXIV. It is based, therefore, on
the prologue of two manuscripts of the Bodleian which contain the translation into
Arabic of the Syro-Hexaplaric version of the Pentateuch, by Harit ibn Sinan (10th
century) and where the sighum S is included, meaning Aovkuavoc.

226 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

in many passages the readings of “the three” and of Lucian could
coincide.

Mercati, instead, reacted against Déorrie’s over-scepticism on the
possibility of transmitting Lucianic readings: all the readings pre-
ceded by this siglum without the article would have to be collected
and compared with variants from the Lucianic group of manuscripts
to obtain more exact results. In his edition of the Twelve Prophets,
Ziegler carried out this exhaustive study in respect of ms. 86 (= Barb.
gr. 549): he distinguished twenty-two cases in which the sighum has
to be interpreted as Lucian and twenty-three in which it definitely
means the other interpreters.'® Similarly in the book of Ezckiel, at
least eight of the fourteen readings preceded by this sighum are backed
up by Lucianic mss and the quotations by Chrysostom and Theodo-
ret, so that in these cases it must be interpreted as Lucian.'? After a
study of this siglum in several manuscripts of 1-2 Kings, I have con-
cluded that in these books it has to be understood as oi Aowtoi (the
other interpreters).'® It seems clear therefore that the sighum 4 can
refer both to Lucian and to the other interpreters and that only a
thorough analysis of its readings, comparing them with those from
Lucianic manuscripts, can resolve the ambiguity in each case.'*

Thus the siglum with the meaning of Aovxwevéc is only found occa-
sionally in the margins of some manuscripts. Accordingly his recen-
sional work is to be found preferably in the groups of LXX manuscripts
that have been revised with particular characteristics. And on this
point research has focused since the close of the 19th century.

b) History of Research

One of the manuscripts that form the basis of the Complutensian
Polyglot in the historical books is ms. 108 (Vat. Graec. 330). Therefore,
this Polyglot exhibits, even if by accident, a Lucianic or Antiochene

3G. Mercati, “Di alcune testimonianze antiche”.

® J. Ziegler, Septuaginta XHT Duodecim Prophetae, Géttingen 1967, 71-73.
“ J. Ziegler, Septuaginta XVI Ezechiel, Gottingen 1952, 45.

* N. Fernandez Marcos, “La sigla ‘lambda omicron’”.

For example, the sigham lambda omicron also occurs in the Pentateuch in ms.
Alfos Pantocrator 24 (= Brooke-McLean’s 2, Wevers’ 344). Wevers has decomposed
this abbreviation into ot A, i.e. “the other interpreters” in every case and perhaps
with reason, as the Lucianic recension has not been identified in the Pentateuch.
However, Brooke-McLean maintained the sighum lambda omicron to be different from

THE LUCLANIC RECENSION 227

text in those books.” Ceriani and Field were the first to notice that
mss 19—-82-93-108, in the historical books, coincide with quotations
from the Antiochene Fathers and with quotations preceded by the
sighum \ (/amadh) in the Syro-Hexapla.”! In 1883, P. de Lagarde, in
an attempt to isolate and publish separately the Lucianic recension
as a first step towards going back to the edition of the original LXX,
extended the results of his research on the book of Ruth to the rest
of the Octateuch, assuming that the text of the manuscripts was uni-
form throughout all the books.” This methodological mistake by De
Lagarde was noted and corrected by Dahse, Hautsch and Rahlfs.
Dahse discovered the Lucianic recension for Genesis in the mss fir
(= 53-56-129 of Rahlfs).7 Hautsch concludes that mss gn (= 54-75
of Rahlfs), are the ones that agree most with quotations in the
Antiochene Fathers Theodoret and Chrysostom." Moore came to
the same conclusion for Judges, though he noted that the manu-
scripts change family or textual filiation from book to book and even
within the same book: thus Codex Washingtonianus in Deuteronomy
has many readings in common with mss 54-75, though this does
not apply to Judges. Furthermore, he insists that all analytical research
has to divest itself of the prejudice of looking for the three expected
recensions. If one group of manuscripts has a series of readings in
common this does not mean to say that it has the characteristics of
a recension in the strict sense. It could simply represent a local var-
iety of a common text.”

Rahlfs distinguishes two groups of Lucianic manuscripts for the
books of Kings, one comprising the better quality mss 82-93, the
other mss 19-108." And he establishes how in Psalms, the Lucianic
recension has become the official text of the Greek Church.*” For

ov A, as can be seen in their Hexaplar apparatus on Ex. 32:1; 34:29; Lev. 25:22;
26:44 and in Numbers and Deuteronomy passim.

2” N. Fernandez Marcos, “El texto griego de la Complutense”, Angjo a la ediciin
Sacsimile de la Biblia Potiglota Complutense, Valencia 1987, 33--42.

1B, M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible”.

2 P, de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti pars prior, Gottingen 1883. In fact mss
19-108 are Lucianic from Ruth 4:11, but not in the Pentateuch.

* J. Dahse, “Zum Luciantext der Genesis”.

* E. Hautsch, “Der Lukiantext des Oktateuchs”,

% G, F. Moore, “The Antiochian Recension of the Septuagint”.

% A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Kinigsbiicher, 51-80. See also J. R. Busto Saiz,
“On the Lucianic Manuscripts in 1-2 Kings”, VI Congress of the LOSCS, 1987, 305-10.

27 A. Rahlts, Septuaginta-Studien 2. Der Text des Septuaginia-Psalters, Gottingen 1907,
169.

228 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Ruth, he agrees with Hautsch that the Lucianic text is transmitted
to us in mss 54-75 and others, and from Ruth 4:11 also in mss 19-108
as well as in the books of Kings.”® However, in his edition of Genesis
he is much more cautious with respect to the possibility of isolating
that recension and concludes that at most it occurs in ms. 75.”

When the critical editions of Gottingen began to stratify the manu-
script material in a more complex and systematic way, the group of
manuscripts of this recension in the prophetic books as well as their
distinctive characteristics became much clearer. Up to now the
Lucianic recension has been observed in all the prophetic books, in
the books of Maccabees, in Judith and in 1~2 Ezra. In the Writings
published so far it should be noted that in Wisdom and Sira it seems
to be present in mss 248-493-637 but not so clearly as in the
Prophets, for two reasons:

1. There are very few quotations from Theodoret and Chrysostom
as a check on the recension of these books.

2. Many of these quotations have no Hebrew Vorlage to supply,
through the Hexapla, a large number of the corrections of the
Lucianic recension.”

In Job, instead, it occurs clearly in the Codex Alexandrinus, the
Codex Venetus (V, from Job 30:8), in the minuscules 575~637 as well
as in the commentaries on the book of Job by Julian the Arian and
by Chrysostom.”

The debate remains open about the existence of this recension for
the Octateuch. In a study of the lists of Canaanite nations, Thornhill
concludes that although ms. is on its own in Genesis and Exodus,
as one progresses through the Octateuch it is supported by others
together with which it forms a group. This group, which in Ruth
covers mss glnowe, of Brooke—McLean, is related to the Old Latin
and is Lucianic.”

The quotations by Chrysostom and Theodoret continue to be the
weak point when identifying the Lucianic text. In a joint study of
Genesis, A. Saenz-Badillos and I concluded that no group of man-

* A. Rahifs, Das Buch Ruth griechisch ais Probe einer kritischen Handausgabe der Septuaginia,
Stuttgart 1922, 4 and 16-17.

A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta. I Genesis, Stuttgart 1926, 28-29.

% J. Zieg “Hat Lukian den griechischen Sirach rezensierti”, 213fC

3! See J. Ziegler, Septuaginia... 1X,4 lob, Gouingen 1982, 86.124.

* See J. Ziegler, Sepiuaginta... LX,4 Job, Gottingen 1982, 86.124.

THE LUCIANIG RECGENSION 229

uscripts contained systematically the text used by Theodoret of Cyr,
but at most one could speak of an Antiochene text because a par-
ticular group of mss is closer to Theodoret’s text. In his recent his-
tory of the text of the various books of the Pentateuch, Wevers
reaches a similar conclusion, i.c. that there are no proofs for the
existence of a Lucianic text in Genesis, which agrees with Chrysostom
and Theodoret. These authors follow a mixed text, and if there had
been a Lucianic recension in Genesis they did not know it.*

Tt might be thought that the difficulty of determining the Lucianic
recension in the Octateuch came from the fluctuation of Theodoret’s
text, since as it is not established by any modern critical edition it
is not possible to derive objective conclusions. To remove this difficulty,
we decided to edit critically Theodoret’s Quaestiones in Octateuchum, an
edition with many chapters missing. However, in connection with the
problem of the Lucianic recension in the Octateuch we have reached
much more nuanced conclusions, for even though it cannot be
identified from Theodoret’s text in the first books of the Octateuch,
at least a typically Antiochene text emerges in the last three books.”

However, no-one has doubted the peculiar nature of the Lucianic
or Antiochene text in the historical books (Samuel-Kings~Chronicles).
No only that, but as the new documents from Qumran are being
published and the plurality of texts around that change of era emerges,
that text was at the forefront of most of the debate concerning the
pluralism of the biblical text. Accordingly, once the critical text of
Theodoret had been established as a control of the Antiochene text
in those books,®* it seemed convenient to us to edit critically the

“ N. Fernandez Marcos and A, Saenz-Badillos, Anolaciones criticas al texto griego del
Génesis, Madrid—Barcelona 1972, 73ff. and 125,

* Apart from the studies on this topic in successive histories of the Greek text
of the Pentateuch published in the MSU of Géttingen between 1974 and 1992, see
also J. W. Wevers, “A Lucianic Recension in Genesis?”, B/OSCS 6 (1973), 22-35
and Wevers, “Theodoret’s Quaest. and the Byzantine Text”. Nor is there a Lucianic
recension in the book of Esther, sce R. Hanhart, Seftuaginia... VIEEF3 Esther, Gottingen
1967, 97, and J.-C. Haelewyck, “Le texte dit ‘lucianique’ du livre d’Esther. Son
étendue et sa cohérence”, Le Muséon 98 (1985), 5-44,

38 N. Fernandez Marcos and A, Saenz-Badillos, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in
Octateuchum, LX-LXM, and N. Fernandez Marcos, “Theodoret’s Biblical Text in
the Octateuch”. For more nuanced conclusions concerning the book of Joshua, see
S. Sipila, “Theodoret of Gyrrhus and the Book of Joshua: Theodoret’s Quaestiones
Revisited”, Textus 19 (1998), 157-70.

3° N. Fernandez Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, Theodoreti Gyrensis Quaestiones in Reges
et Paralifomena, Madrid 1984.

230 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Antiochene text from Samuel to Chronicles, a single, uniform text
with very clear textual characteristics, unlike those in most of the
text of the LXX.””

c) Characteristics

Although it is unlikely for all the characteristics of the Lucianic recen-
sion to appear in equal measure in the various books, some of the
more specific features can be noted which are of some guidance in
those books where this recension has been studied best: Prophets,
1-3 Maccabees and | Ezra. In general, it can be stated that it tends
to fill the gaps in the LXX in respect of the Hebrew text on the
basis of additions taken from “the three”, particularly from Symmachus.
This procedure, combined with a certain freedom in handling the
text, often gives rise to a series of doublets that are not in the LXX.
It also inserts a series of interpolations (proper names instead of the
corresponding pronoun, possessive pronouns, articles, conjunctions,
making implicit subjects or objects explicit, etc.) which tend to clar-
ify the sense or minimise incorrect grammar. It often resorts to chang-
ing a synonym, in most cases without it being possible to discover
the reason for the change. At other times one notices a tendency to
replace Hellenistic forms with Attic forms due to the influence of
the grammarians of the time. There are also many grammatical and
stylistic changes: of preposition, of simple to compound verbs, of per-
son, number, etc.

The result is a full text with no omissions.* In his study on the
history of the text in 1 Ezra, Hanhart agrees that the characteris-
tics of this recension correspond to a large extent with those described
in the Prophets and Maccabees. The first recensional principle con-
sists in correcting the text according to the corresponding Hebrew—
Aramaic Vorlage, hence, Lucian supported most of the material from

* See Select Bibliography.

% Thus in books that have no Hebrew Vorlage the additions and omissions accord-
ing to the dextus receptus, generally taken from “the three”, cannot be included, as
is the case for the prophetic books.

* B. M. Metzger, “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible”, 24ff., and
J. Ziegler, “Hat Lukian den griechischen Sirach rezensiert?” 219ff And in general
the section “Die Rezension des Lukians” in the introductions to the edition of the
prophetic and wisdom books in the Géttingen series.

* R. Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichie des 1. Esrabuches, 20-28.

THE LUCIANIG RECENSION 231

Origen’s recension and therefore is late.*! As a second principle of
the recension, subordinate to the first, especially noteworthy is the
tendency to make the text uniform and to explain it. This is par-
ticularly obvious where the Hebrew Vorlage is missing, as happens in
1 Esd. 3:1-5:6 (the episode of King Darius’ three bodyguards) and
in the books of Maccabees. Here some mention must be made of
the correction of forms into Attic Greek, although never carried out
in a completely consistent way (restoration of the second aorist of
the 3rd person plural -ov instead of the Hellenistic -ooav; replacing
the Hellenistic aorist passive of yiveo8o1 with the middle, etc.).
Prominent among these stylistic phenomena are the replacement of
a compound verb by a simple form, the insertion of a vocative, sub-
ject or pronoun, transpositions instead of the more classical hyper-
baton, etc.

Together with these common features, which help to identify the
Lucianic recension in the various books, others have to be added of
a literary nature, valid at least for the historical books, where this
recension emerges more clearly. In these books the Antiochene text
completes what is unsaid or said only implicitly in the narrative
chain, often rewrites the phrase, adapting it stylistically to Greek
hyperbaton, and carries out another series of editorial interventions
that are theological, midrashic or simply cultic (“Gelehrtenkorrekturen”).
In Samuel-Chronicles, then, it is an edited and revised text prob-
ably with a view to public reading.”

To summarise, it can be concluded from research over the last
few years that, whereas in the other books of the LXX the extent
and traits of the Lucianic recension have been nuanced in certain
ways and its existence has even been denied in some books,” in the
historical books it has been increasingly confirmed with more specific
characteristics.“* This apparent paradox can be clarified by means

*' For Joshua and Judges, see O. Pretzl, “Septuagintaprobleme im Buch der
Richter. Die griechischen Handschriftengruppen im Buch der Richter untersucht
nach ihrer Verhditnis zueinander”, Bib 7 (1926}, 233-69 and 353-83, especially for
the Lucianic recension 265-69; Bib 9 (1928), 377-427, especially 425-27.

® See N. Fernandez Marcos, “Literary and Editorial Features”.

*® The existence of the Lucianic recension has been called into question, both
in the Pentateuch and in the book of Psalms, see A. Pietersma, “Proto-Lucian and
the Greek Psalter”, VT 28 (1978), 66-72, and L. J. Perkins, “The So-called ‘L’
Text of Psalms 72-82”, BIOSCS 11 (1978), 44-63.

* See N. Fernandez Marcos, “The Lucianic Text in the Book of Kingdoms”.

232 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

of the following three statements, which can be used as guidelines
for future research:

{. The Antioch recension of the LXX did not cover all the books
of the Old Testament, or at least it has not been identified in all
of them.

2. This recension was transmitted in a certain number of manu-
scripts. However, the manuscripts that transmit it change within
the various groups of writings or even from book to book.

3. Although it has been possible to define some characteristics com-
mon to this extension as Antiochene, they are apparent in different
degrees, depending on the book.

In other words, in terms of text, the Antiochene text of the Psalter
is closer to the Byzantine text of the New Testament than to the
Antiochene text of Samuel—Chronicles.

From the earliest research it had already been noted that in the
Lucianic recension there were two clearly differentiated components:

1. some late material, certainly post-Hexaplaric, included in the time
of the historical Lucian;

2. an underlying layer of very ancient readings, earlier than the time
of Lucian.

The hypothesis of the proto-Lucianic text has been used to explain
this first layer of the recension and its insertion into the history of
the LXX. This is perhaps, in Wevers’ words, “the most difficult
problem in modern Septuagint work”,*® which put the Lucianic recen-
sion to the forefront of debate in respect of the textual pluralism of
the books of Samuel—Kings especially in the light of Qumran Cave 4.
Samuel.

d) Gurrent Research and Future Prospects: The Proto-Lucianic Text

By different paths the conclusion has been reached that several parts
of the Old Latin (2nd century ce) contain Lucianic readings. Ceriani
demonstrated this for Lamentations’ and Vercellone for the mar-

*® See N. Fernandez Marcos, “Some Reflections on the Antiochian Text”.

© J. W. Wevers, “Proto-Septuagint Studies”, The Seed of Wisdom; Fs. T: J. Meck,
Toronto 1964, 58-77, p. 69: “All in all, the so-called proto-Lucianic text is to my
mind the most difficult problem in modern Septuagint work.”

A.M. Ceriani, Monumenia sacra et profana WU, 2.

THE LUCIANIG RECENSION 233

ginal glosses to the Codex Legionensis that do not agree with the com-
mon LXX but with mss 19-82-93-108, which are Lucianic in char-
acter, in Samuel—Kings."* Burkitt established that in the Prophets the
Old Latin sometimes relied on the Lucianic text.
The variety of data and their different origins do not make likely
Dieu’s thesis according to which the quotations from the Old Latin
were subsequently retouched in the Lucianic sense.”
The same result is obtained from examining the quotations from
Latin authors earlier than Lucian. Although Rahlfs concluded in his
study on the books of Kings that no Latin author before Lucifer of
Cagliari (d. 371) contained Lucianic readings, Cappelle’s monograph
on the Latin Psalter in Africa shows that Tertullian and Cyprian did
know a proto-Lucianic recension.*! According to Stockmayer, the
Peshitta of 1 Samuel also contains Lucianic readings.” Although there
are still many unexplained problems around the date of its compo-
sition, many think that the Peshitta comes from the 2nd/3rd centuries
cE; in that case it would contain remains of the proto-Lucianic text.
Several Greek witnesses point in the same direction. In the first
place, the text used by Josephus in his Antiquities, written towards the
end of the Ist century cr, is Lucianic in type from Samuel to
Maccabees, exactly as was noted by A. Mez and later corroborated
by Thackeray.’ With a few improvements, these results have been
confirmed by more recent research by Ulrich and Spottorno.™ Instead,
there are serious doubts about other supposed witnesses of the
proto-Lucianic text such as Pap. John Rylands 458 to Deuteronomy

*® F.C. Burkitt, The Rules of Tyconius, Cambridge 1894.

® Dieu, “Retouches lucianiques”.

» B. M. Metzger, “Uhe Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible”, 38M, and
P. Capelle, Le texte du Psautier latin en Afrique, Rome 1913.

8 'T. Stockmayer, “Hat Lukian zu seiner Septuaginta-revision die Peschito beniitzt?”
ZAW 12 (1892), 218-23.

3 A. Mez, Die bibel des Josephus untersucht fir Buch V-VII der Archéologie, Basle 1895,
and H. St J. Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian, New York 1929, 85:
han Biblical Text is uniformly of this Lucianic type from I Samuel to
”, and on p. 86, “Next to ‘Lucian’, the Biblical text most nearly allied
to the historian’s is that of Symmachus.”

34 EB. CG. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, and Ulrich, “Josephus
Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel”, Josephus, 1989, 81-96, pp. 92-93; V. Spot-
torno, “Some Remarks on Josephus Biblical Text for 1-2 Kings”, VI Congress of the
IOSCS, Abbreviated titles 1987, 277-85.

234 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

(c. 150 pce) or Pap. 2054 of Rahlfs (2nd/3rd century ce) which con-
tains the text of Psalm 77:1-18.°

The other important witness of the proto-Lucianic continues to
be the Old Latin, which in the historical books follows for prefer-
ence a Greek text of Antiochene type. Of course, before being used
as a witness of the proto-Lucianic text the material must be exam-
ined critically and what is original separated from what is recen-
sional in that text.>*

The hypothesis of the proto-Lucianic recension has been put for-
ward chiefly on the basis of the historical books. The problem has
become more acute with the discovery of Hebrew texts in Qumran
differing from the dextus receplus (especially 4QSam*) which also agree
in Samuel with the text of the Antiochene manuscripts 19~108-82-
93-127.” On the other hand, Barthélemy’s studies have set the proto-
Lucianic recension within the frame of the Palestine katye revision,
defining it as the old LXX “plus ou moins abatardie et corrompue”,®
although later, besides the «oye recension, he accepted in the book
of Kings “une recension grécisante assez étendue subie par le texte
de boc,e,”.°° In his dissertation on the recensions in the books of
Samuel and later in a short study, S. P. Brock reacted against
Barthélemy’s over-simplification: the text of the mss bocge, did not
contain the original LXX. That text had acquired its definitive form
in a period very close to Lucian, but many of its distinctive traits
were pre+Lucianic and in future the task will be to separate Lucianic
from pre-Lucianic elements in that text.

* The Lacianic character of these witnesses has been called into question by
J. W. Wevers, “The Earliest Witness to the LXX Deuteronomy”, CBQ 39 (1977),
240-44, and A. Pietersma, “Proto-Lucian and the Greek Psalter” 72.

% See R. Hanhart, “Urspriinglicher Septuagintatext und lukianische Rezension
des 2. Esrabuches im Verhdltnis zur Textform der Vetus Latina”, 113-15, and
N. Fernandez Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of
Kings, Leiden 1994, 41-87,

57 See S$. Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light
of Qumran Manuscripts”, Textus 4 (1964), 95-132; F. M. Cross, “The History of the
Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert”, HTR 57 (1964),
281-99; Cross, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts”, Qumran and the History of
the Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S. Talmon, Cambridge, Mass.~London 1975, 306-20.

58 —D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTS 10, Leiden 1963, 127.

*® D. Barthélemy, “Les problémes textuels de 2 Sam 11,2-1 Rois 2,11”, 28,
reprinted in Barthélemy, Etudes d'histoire du texte de VAncien Testament, Fribourg—Gottingen
1978, 224,

© S. P. Brock, The Recensions of the Septuaginta Version of I Samuel, Turin 1996,
297-307, and Brock, “Lucian ‘redivivus’”, 180.

THE LUCIANIC RECENSION 235

We are still far from having recovered the original LXX in this
section of Samuel. In these five Antiochene manuscripts there are
recensional elements of a stylistic nature with the aim of making the
Greek text more readable. E. Tov returned to the topic, adopting
an intermediate position between Barthélemy and Cross: for Tov the
substrate of mss 19—108-82-93-127 contains cither the ancient LXX
or an ancient LXX, leaving the way open to other translations as
different and as old as the claimed original LXX. In other words,
there is not enough recensional foundation to sustain the proto-
Lucianic hypothesis.*!

There remains much work to be done in the historical books for
a more precise definition of the proto-Lucianic recension. For a
definitive reply we shall have to wait until the Hebrew texts from
Qumran are published and the Greek material from these books
is stratified in suitable critical editions. The publication of com-
plete indexes to the Antiochene text would also enable the Lucianic
material to be separated from the proto-Lucianic. Meanwhile, like
E. Ulrich, I think that the proto-Lucianic is a fact,” although the com-
ponent of a revision in favour of a Palestinian type of Hebrew text
such as 4QSam* is not proved, as Cross would wish. This is because
there is no doubt that the relationship of 4QSam* with the text of
the LXX, a well-established kinship, is not at the same level as its
relationship with the Antiochene text, which rests on a handful of
weaker agreements. However, what cannot be ignored is the stylis-
tic component of this revision detected by Brock and already present
in the early layer of these five manuscripts, the so-called proto-
Lucianic.* The separation of the Antiochene tradition contained in
these five manuscripts from the remainder of the LXX has in all
likelihood to be dated to the Ist century ce. Now the geographic or
historical conditions of Asia Minor do not justify a separate trans-
mission of the Antiochene text against most of the LXX text. This
is why I resorted to the hypothesis that the proto-Lucianic must have
been a stylistic revision by the Jews of Alexandria in view of the

6 E. Tov, “Lucian and Proto-Lucian”.

® E.G. Ulrich, “4QSam* and Septuagintal Research”, BIOSCS 8 (1975), 26-27.

® See N. Fernandez Marcos, “The Lucianic Text in the Books of Kingdoms”,
170-72.

3 SP. Brock, “A Doublet and its Ramifications”, Bib 56 (1975), 550-53, and
Brock, “Bibeliibersetzungen”, TRE VI, 1980, 163-72 and 177-78.

236 ‘THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

important Jewish colony in Antioch in the Ist century ce.” It is
difficult to prove when we are using such scant and fragmentary
data ~ the lack of quotations from Antiochene Fathers before 300
ce, the fact that the tendencies of revision are the same in the proto-
Lucianic as in the Lucianic, etc. — but at least there are plausible
indications of that revision which would explain the traces that it in
turn has left in the quotations by Josephus and in the Old Latin.

Beyond the books of Kings, where the debate has been more
intense, we can conclude with Hanhart, on the basis of the tradi-
tion duly studied from Prophets and Maccabees:

1. that in these books there has been a post-Hexaplaric reworking
of the text which must have taken place in Antioch and so can
be called Lucianic;

2. that this recension, especially when it agrees with the Old Latin
and/or Josephus, either in itself or through tie Hexaplaric recen-
sion, bears an older pre-Hexaplar tradition;

3. that the pre-Hexaplaric character of this material is no criterion
for originality, since to a large extent it is based on an older
work of recension.

SeLect BrstiocRaPHy

Bardy, G., Recherches sur St. Lucien d’Antioche et son école, Paris 1936, especially 164~77.

Brock, 8. P., “Lucian ‘redivivus’: Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s ‘Les Devanciers
Aquila”. Studia Evangelica V (1968) = TU 103, 176-81.

Busto Saiz, J. R., “he Anuiochene Text in 2 Samuel 22”. VHT Congress of the LOSCS,
1995, 131-43,

Cantera, J., “Puntos de contacto de la “Vetus Latina’ con la recensién de Luciano
y con otras recensiones griegas”. Sefarad 25 (1965), 69-72.

® N. Fernandez Marcos, “El Protolucianico, ¢revisién griega de los judios de
Antioquia?”

® R. Hanhart, Septuaginta VII-3 Esther, Gottingen 1966, 95 n. 1.

As for the later influence of the Lucianic recension, we have seen how in the
Psalter it became the official text of the Orthodox Church. The Gothic Bible, trans-
lated by Ulfilas in the second half of the 4th century, is from a Lucianic text; and
similarly, the translation into Slavonic by Cyril and Methodius was made from this
recension. Finally, the Syriac version known as Philoxenian, the work of Philoxenus
of Mabug (Hierapolis) in the patriarchate of Antioch, follows a Lucianic text, as is
proved by the addition to Is. 9:6 that it includes. Its existence was unknown until
1868 when A. M. Ceriani edited part of Isaiah in Monumenta sacra et profana, V, see
F, Kauffmann, “Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der gothischen Bibel Uebersetzung.
Vorbemerkungen, I, Die alttestamentlichen Bruchstiicke”, Zeitschrift _fitr deutsche Philologie
29 (1897), 306-37. :

THE LUCIANIC RECENSION 23

Dahse, J., “Zam Luciantext der Genesis”. ZAW 30 (1910), 281-87.

Deconinck, J., Essai sur la chaine de VOclateugue avec une édition des Commentaires de Diodore
de Tarse, Paris 1912.

Dieu, L., “Retouches lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille version latine (1
et WH Samuel)”. RB ns 16 (1919), 372403.

Fernandez Marcos, N., “El Protolucianico, grevisién griega de los judios de Antio-

i Bib 64 (1983), 423-27.

La sigla ‘lambda omicron’ (A) en I-I] Reyes-LXX”. Sefarad 38 (1978),
243 62.

——~~, N., “Literary and Editorial Features of the Antiochian Text in Kings”. V7
Gongs of the JOSCS, 287-304.

» “Some Reflections on the Antiochian ‘Text of the Septuagint”. Studien
zur ee 1990, 219-29.

— N., “The Antiochian Text of I-IL Chronicles”. VIZ Congress of the LOSCS,
1901, 301- 1.

» “The Lucianic Text in the Books of Kingdoms: From Lagarde to the
Rk Pluralism”. De Septuaginta, 1984, 161-75.

Fernandez Marcos, N., “Theodoret’s Biblical Text in the Octateuch”, BIOSCS 11
(1978), 27-43.

~~, N. and A, Saenz-Badillos, Theodoreti Gyrensis Quaestiones in Octateuchum, Editio
critica, Madrid 1979.

, N., and J. R. Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega, [, 1-2 Samuel,
with the collaboration of V. Spottorno Diaz-Caro and S. P. Gowe, Madrid
1989; H/, 1-2 Reyes, with the collaboration of V. Spottorne Diaz-Caro, Madrid
1992; IH, 1-2 Crinicas, with the collaboration of V. Spottorno Diaz-Garo and
S. P. Cowe, Madrid 1996.

Field, F., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunl, Oxford 1875, LXXXIV—XCIIL.

Fischer, B., “Lukian-Lesarten in der ‘Vetus Latina’ der Vier Kénigsbiicher”. Studia
Anselmiana 27-28 (1951), 169-77.

Hanhart, R., Text und Textgeschichte des 1. Esrabuches. MSU XII, Gottingen 1974.

, R., “Ursprimglicher Septuagintatext und lukianische Rezension des 2.
Esrabuches im Verhaltnis zur Textform der Vetus Latina”. Philologia Sacra.
Biblische und patristische Studien fiir Hermann J. Frede und Walter Thiele 2u ihrem siebzig-
sten Geburtstag I, ed. R. Gryson, Freiburg, 1993, 90-115.

Hautsch, E., “Der Lukiantext des Oktateuchs”. MSU I = NGWGatt (1909), 518-43.

Jellicoe, S., SMS, 157-76.

Mereati, G., “Di alcune testimonianze antiche sulle cure bibliche di San Luciano”.
Bib 24 (1943), 1-17.

Metzger, B. M., “The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible”. Chapters in the History
of New Testament Textual Criticism, Leiden 1963, 1-41.

Moore, G. F., “Phe Antiochian Recension of the Septuagint”. A7SL 29 (1912-13),
37-62.

Pietersma, A., “Proto-Lucian and the Greek Psalter”, VT 28 (1978), 66-72.

Rahifs, A., LXX-Studien HI: Lucians Rezension der Konigsbiicher, Gottingen 1911.

Spanneut, M., “La Bible d’Eustathe d’Antioche ~ Contribution a4 histoire de la
‘version lucianique’”. Studia Patristica 4 (1961) = TU 79, 171-90.

Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914.

‘Taylor, B. A., The Luctanic Manuscripts of I Reigns. Vol. 1, Majority Text. Vol. 2, Analysis,
Atlanta, Ga, 1992 and 1993.

Thornhill, R., “Six or Seven Nations: A Pointer to the Lucianic Text in the
Heptateuch with Special Reference to the Old Latin Version”. 77S ns 10
(1959), 233-46. ;

“Notes sur la recension luciarique d’Ezéchiel”. RB ns 8 (1911), 384-90.

Lucian and Proto-Lucian”. RB 79 (1972), 101-13.

238 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

, £. ae The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, Jerusalem 1980.

Ulrich, E. C., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, Missoula, Mont. 1978.

Vaccari, oe “Fragmentum Biblicum saeculi IE ante Christum” . Bib 17 (1936),
501-304.

Wevers, J. W., “Theodoret’s Quaest. and the Byzantine Text”. Henoch 13 (1991),

“Hat Lukian den griechischen Sirach rezensiert?”. Bib 40 (1959), 210-29,

GHAPTER FIFTEEN

HESYCHIAN RECENSION OR ALEXANDRIAN
GROUP OF MANUSCRIPTS?

In 1975, J. W. Wevers stated that “the Hesychian recension still
remains unidentified”.! A century after the pioneering work of Lagarde
with his programmatic declaration of separating out the three recen-
sions mentioned by Jerome so as to attain the primitive LXX, the
Gottingen project continues rescarch in the direction begun by its
founder, but distancing itself from the simplistic image of the three
classical recensions. We have just seen how Lucian’s recension has
yet to be identified in the Pentateuch; and even the most-known,
the Hexaplaric recension, is difficult to trace in certain books such
as Chronicles. On the other hand, other textual families emerge that
are different from these three, without any particular recensional
base and they vary according to book. What happens with the Hesy-
chian recension?

a) Ancient Witnesses

Our information about this recension is exclusively from two pas-
sages of Jerome that contradict each other: the well-known prologue
to the book of Chronicles, “Alexandria et Acgyptus in Septuaginta
suis Hesychium laudat auctorem,”” and the prologue to the evan-
gelists, “Praetermitto cos codices quos a Luciano ct Hesychio nun-
cupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio, quibus utique
nec in Veteri instrumento post septuaginta interpretes emendare quid
licuit nec in Novo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium lin-
guis Scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt.”

' J. W. Wevers, “The Gottingen Septuagint”, BJOSCS 8 (1975), 19-23, p. 22.
See also P. de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior Grace,
Géttingen 1883 HIM, and earlier, Wevers, Ammerkungen zur griechischen Ubersetzung der
Proverbien, Gottingen 1863, 3.

® Jerome, Prologus ... in libro Paralipomenon.

* Jerome, Praefatio... in Evangelio.

240 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Jerome’s statements cannot be accepted unreservedly. According
to Vaccari,' in the second paragraph the reference is only to the
New Testament; Jellicoe instead thinks that his proposals concern
both the Old and New Testaments.?

This reference, therefore, can serve as a ferminus ad quem for the
Hesychian recension. In the Decretum Gelasianum V, 3, 8-9, tt says
expressly: “evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius Apocrypha”.® However
today it is accepted that this condemnation is the result of a mis-
understanding about Jerome’s critical remarks on Hesychius.’

The difficulty in identifying the author of this recension is that
Hesychius was a common name in early Christianity. In the Dictionary
of Christian Biography there are twenty-seven different people with the
same name. The best known is the lexicographer from the 5th cen-
tury, whom some have claimed to identify as the biblical scholar.
However, these two authors have nothing in common except their
name. On the other hand, apparently the lexicographer was not a
Christian and the Christian glosses and allusions to Christian writ-
ers come from a later hand. Finally, if he were a Christian he would
not have lived before the 5th/6th century ce.*

Others have considered Hesychius to be an Egyptian bishop who
died in the persecution of Diocletian, co-writer with two others of
a letter to Meletios, schismatic bishop of Licopolis.? However, this
identification is no more than mere conjecture and is not accepted
uncritically by any scholar. Furthermore it would be difficult to con-
nect him with the Alexandrian group of manuscripts represented by
this recension since its characteristics already appear in Papyrus 965
from the first half of the 3rd century ce. In Ziegler’s opinion, this
papyrus is the chief witness against the Hesychian recension." Are
we perhaps looking for the author of a recension that never existed?
As we shall sec, this recension is barely tangible and impossible to
pin down chronologically.

‘A. Vaccari, “The Hesychian Recension of the Bible”.

5 §. Jellicoe, “The Hesychian Recension Reconsidered”.

® In De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, PL 59, 162.

* See E. von Dobschiitz, Das Decretum Gelasianum. TU 38, 4, Leipzig 1912.

* KK. Latte (ed.), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon 1, Copenhagen 1953, VIII: “Sexto igi-
tur quam quinto saeculo Hesychium potius adsignabis, nec scribae et auctoris officia
coniuncta (adtog tig xetpt ypdqov) priori tempora pati videntur. Quamquam hacc
quidem omnia incerta sunt.”

* Eusebius, Ffést. ce. VII, 13,7.

0 J. Ziegler, Septuaginta XIV. Isaias, Géuingen 1939, 23.

HESYCHIAN RECENSION OR ALEXANDRIAN REVISION 241
b) The History of Research

Against the identification of this recension the Géttingen editors
exhibit increasing uncertainty and scepticism. Grave was the first to
expound the theory of identifying this recension as the Vatican Codex
in his “Letter to Mill” (1705),'' a theory accepted until very recently.
De Lagarde," Swete,' Nestle,'! Gornill,!® Ceriani,'® McLean,'’ Ott-
ley’® and Rahlfs have maintained that a Hesychian text is reflected
in some manuscripts, although the specialists did not agree on which.
In his study of the text of the psalter, Rahlfs discovers it in Cyril of
Alexandria, in the Vatican and Alexandrian codices (although here
with Hexaplaric influence), in papyrus Amh VI (an Egyptian frag-
ment from the 7th century), in certain minuscules (especially ms. 55)
and in the Bohairic version, which in turn influenced the transla-
tions into Arabic and the Ethiopic Psalter.'? However, in his 1931
edition of the Psalms, the same author does not mention the Hesychian
recension. And in his manual edition of the LXX (1935) Rahlfs states
categorically: “Es ist bisher noch nicht sicher gclungen diese dritte
Rezension nachzuweisen.””

In the critical editions that have appeared so far in the Gottingen
series, no group of manuscripts is labelled “recension of Hesychius”.
At most they speak of an Alexandrian group of manuscripts and it
is described in very watered-down terms, falling short of an actual
recension. The same type of scepticism is shown by H. Dorrie, who
even calls it a “legendarische Rezension”,”! and F. G. Kenyon who

"9. E. Gratii Epistola ad Clarissinum Virum Dn. Joannem Millium... qua ostenditur
Libri Fudicum Genuinam LXX. Interpretum Versionem eam esse quam Ms. Codex “Alexandrinus”
exhibet. “Romenam” autem Editionem, quod ad dictum Librum ab illa prorsus diversam algue
eandem cum “Hesychiana” esse, Oxford 1705.

" P. de Lagarde, Genesis Graece, Leipzig 1868, 21.
'S H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 78{T. and 481ff.
“ E. Nestle, in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings, London—New York,

1898-1904, IV, 445b.

°C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, Leipzig 1886, 66ff.

'8 A. Ceriani, De Codice Marchaliano... Commentatio, Rome 1890, 48ff and 105i.

N, McLean, in JTS 2 (1901), 305-308, p. 306.

R.R. Ottley, The Book of Isaiah According to the LXX (Codex Alexandrinus), Cambridge
1904, I, 6f. and 14ff

'° A. Rahlts, Septuaginta-Studien I, 183-97 and 235-36.

* A. Rahlfs, Septuaginia, Stuttgart 1935, XIV.

*) A. Dorrie, “Zur Geschichte der Septuaginta im Jahrhundert Konstantins”,
ZNW 39 (1940), 57-110.

242 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

maintains that the title “Hesychian” for B in the New Testament

3922

rests in fact on little more than “a shadow of shade”.

c) Hesychian Recension or Alexandrian Revision?

In more recent publications opinion continues to be divided. Some
more positive judgements about this recension have emerged, as well
as other indications that tend to revalorise it. However, at the same
time the lack of criteria and of concrete characteristics to define it
demand extreme caution. It is argued that the scant data we have
on its author are not a reason for rejecting him from history if we
remember that we know little more about Symmachus or ‘Theodlotion.
In spite of such authoritative views as those of Ziegler or Rahlfs,
who have denied the existence of this recension, Vaccari thinks that
we can use the Coptic versions and the quotations of the Egyptian
Fathers, especially the Alexandrian Fathers, from the 4th to the 5th
centuries cx,” as a criterion for identifying it. For the historical books
it would occur in mss M V 55 56 119 158 and those in its family.
In Prophets, the Alexandrian group is principally made up of the
mss A Q 26 86 106 198 and 233." In his commentary on Is. 58:11,
Jerome alludes to a passage that only occurs im the “Alexandrian
copy” against B and S.*° Therefore this passage, he insists, can be
used as a key for further research on the recension. In examining
the translations from Greek to Arabic and Coptic—Arabic, it is clear
that ms. ar. Vat. 445 has this addition, in other words, that the Greek
manuscript used by El ‘Alam, a priest of Alexandria, belongs to this
group. Similarly, the Arabic version of Daniel, also by El ‘Alam,
seems to follow Alexandrian manuscripts. This allows us to say, there-

2 FG. Kenyon, “Hesychius and the Text of the New Testament”, 250.
S. Jellicoe, SMS, 152.

* A, Vaccari, “the Hesychian Recension of the Bible”. .

* See, especially, J. Ziegler, Sepuaginta... XIV. Isaias, Gottingen 1967, 21~36,
and Ziegler, Septuaginia... XIII Duodecim Prophetae, Gottingen 1967, 39-53.

% Kal te d0t& cov do Potdvn dvatérer Kai movOAoetor (-covtar Cyr) Kai
KAnpovopaovouv) yevedg yevedv (“And your bones shall sprout like a plant, they
shall become fat and inherit many generations”), see J. Ziegler, /saias, p. 339. And
Jerome, Comm, in Is. PL 24, 570: “Quod in Alexandrinis exemplaribus in princi-
pio huius capituli additum est: Et adhuc in te erit laus mea semper, ct in fine: et ossa
fua quasi herba onentur, el pinguescent, et haereditate possidebunt in generationem et generationes,
in Hebraico non habetur, sed ne in Septuaginta quidem emendatis et veris exem-
plaribus: unde obelo praenotandum est.”

HESYCHIAN RECENSION OR ALEXANDRIAN REVISION 243

fore, that there are indications of the Hesychian recension in the
textual tradition of the Greek Old Testament.

So, as Jellicoe remarks, this addition could be even older than B
and the exemplar of El ‘Alam mentioned. This means that the text
of B and S could be a revision of the Alexandrian text, ic. the
Hesychian recension, if B reproduces a revision based on the strictly
Alexandrian principle of preference for the short reading.”

Groussouw concedes a place to this recension although he admits
that it is the most problematic of all: the Bohairic version is a faith-
ful representative of the Hesychian family.’’ Finally, in 1963 Jellicoe
comes to the defence of the Hesychian recension using an old hypo-
thesis formulated in a new perspective: the Vatican Codex repre-
sents and relays a recension that it shortens, as can be seen in Judges,
the text of Tobit and in Daniel-Theodotion. It has no textual uni-
formity. Its text is of inferior quality in Isaiah and corrupt in
Chronicles-Ezra—Nehemiah. Its tendency to shorten is evident since
the books of Maccabees are missing. Thus it would represent a recen-
sion begun in Alexandria for the churches of Egypt towards the end
of the 3rd century ce, just as earlier Origen had made his recen-
sion for Palestine. Instead of being by one person it was a corpo-
rate enterprise in which the tendency to shorten was due more to
necessity than to choice. The recension was interrupted by persecu-
tion, so that the books of Maccabees were excluded. In this hypoth-
esis, B would be the work of a scribe who, following the Alexandrian
principle initiated by Aristarchus and continued by his successors in
editing the classics, adopted the shortest reading as the best. It should
also not be forgotten that the number and sequence of Old and
New Testament books in the Vatican Codex correspond exactly to
those in the canon of scriptures set out by Athanasius of Alexandria
in 367, in his festive letter number 39.”

However, this hypothesis, if we except a few incidental agree-
ments, seems to ignore the researches of the Géttingen editors who

6S, Jellicoe, SMS, 155.

27 W. Groussouw, The Coptic Versions of the Minor Prophels, Rome 1938, 101-103.

% §, Jellicoe, “The Hesychian Recension Reconsidered”, and J. W. Wevers, “A
Study in the Textual History of Codex Vaticanus in the Books of Kings”, ZAW 64
(1952), 178-89. Wevers finds many passages marked by an asterisk in B. However,
they do not go against the pre-Hexaplaric nature of the ms. but may be an indi-
cation of pre-Hexaplaric recensional traces according to the pre-Masoretic text, as
happens in Papyrus 967.

” See PG 25, 1436-40.

244 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

precisely in books in which the manuscripts have been studied and
classified, do not fit ms. B within the Alexandrian group. Also, if we
take into account the results of Vaccari and Wevers, the same applies
to the historical books and the Pentateuch.”

Since the quotations by the Alexandrian Fathers from the 2nd to
4th centuries (Clement, Origen and Didymus) follow text A and its
group in Judges, whereas in the 5th century Cyril of Alexandria
already uses text B and its group, G. F. Moore suspects that the
Vatican text was translated in the 4th century ce.*'! However, Cox
has shown that Cyril’s quotations have to be used with the greatest
reserve and cannot be related to Hesychius through the Vatican
Codex since it is generally accepted today that this codex has a pre-
recensional text.** We are, then, still very far from reaching definitive
conclusions. Nowadays, comparison of isolated manuscripts is not
acceptable; it has to be groups of manuscripts. And in Judges, B
usually goes with mss iud,. Furthermore, according to partial sondages
in the Song of Deborah, its text has no connection with the alleged
Hesychian recension, but instead contains a revision of the old LXX
closely linked with the “three” and possibly identical with the kotye
revision.” In his monograph, Bodine reached the same conclusions
recently when identifying the Vatican family in Judges with the catye
recension.*

At the close of this analysis we can state that research on the
Hesychian recension is in deadlock from which it is difficult to emerge
without the help of new data from tradition or new methodological
approaches.

3° In fact, B in Isaiah belongs to the Hexaplaric group. On this point Jellicoe
does not seem to be completely consistent since on page 155 of SMS he states: “In
B, which we regard as pre-eminently the representative of the Hesychian recension, the text
of Daniel is “Theodotionic’”. Against that, on page 156, n. 8 he affirms: “No group-
ing in the Géttingen LXX is classed as ‘Hesychian’; cf. ‘Alexandrian’ in this edi-
tion.” Nevertheless, the filiation of the Vatican ms. is not clear. It does not usually
go with the “Alexandrian group” of manuscripts, but in several books its text is
very close to some members of the group (for example, in Daniel, Ezekiel or
Jeremiah).

3G. F. Moore, Judges in ICC. Moore thought that texts of A and B went back
to two different translations, an hypothesis that has now been rejected.

® C. E, Cox, “Cyril of Alexandria’s Text for Deuteronomy”, 49-50.

* J. Schreiner, “Zum B-Text des griechischen Canticum Deborae”, Bib 42 (1961),
333-58, and A. Saenz-Badillos, “Transmisién griega y texto hebreo en e] Canto de
Débora (Ju 5)", Sefarad 33 (1973), 245-58.

4 W. R. Bodine, The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments, Chico, Calif.
1980,

HESYCHIAN RECENSION OR ALEXANDRIAN REVISION 245

New documents that can throw light on this period of textual his-
tory include the Tura Papyrus of Didymus the Blind, which con-
tains a commentary on Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes and Zachariah,
discovered in 1941 and published recently.® Together with the quo-
tations from Cyril of Alexandria, the biblical text of Didymus the
Blind may help to locate this possible recension in Alexandria and
Egypt. In the book of Zachariah, Didymus scems to be one of the
most faithful witnesses of the Alexandrian group."* On the other
hand, by extending the horizon of the LXX, it will be possible to
obtain more precise results when monographs on the post-Ptolemaic
papyri and other literary documents from the first centuries provide
us with better knowledge of the Greek of Egypt.” The Alexandrian
lexicographers merit particular attention. K. Latte insists on the spe-
cial worth of a witness still ignored in studies on the Hesychian
recension: the Cyrillian or Alexandrian glosses, especially when they
agree with ms. A. And finally, for the Octateuch and historical
books, we will have to wait for modern critical editions to stratify
the data and the filiation of the manuscripts in order to be able to
reach a definitive solution.

Provisionally, the characteristics usually assigned to the Alexandrian
group, both in the editions of the prophets and im other partial stud-
ies are as follows:

35 N. Fernandez Marcos, “El texto biblico de Didimo en el Comentario a Zacarias
del Papiro de Tura”, and L. Doutreleau, Didyme UAveugle. Sur Zacharie. Texte inédit
daprés un papyrus de Toura. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes, 1~IIL SC 83-85,
Paris 1962. The commentaries by Didymus on Job, Psalms and Ecclesiastes have
appeared in the collection “Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen” of Bonn from
1968 to 1972, edited by A. Henrichs, U. Hagedorn, D. Hagedorn, L, Koenen (Job);
M. Gronewald, L. Doutreleau, A. Gesché (Psalms) and G. Binder, L. Liesenborghs,
J. Kramer and B. Krebber (Ecclesiastes). However, as yet there is no overall sys-
tematic study on the biblical text of this writer.

% N. Fernandez Marcos, “El texto btblico de Didimo”, 281.

See F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods.
1: Phonology, Milan 1976; 2: Morphology, Milan 1981, and N. Fernandez Marcos,
“iRasgos dialectales en la kow? tardia de Alejandria?”,

OK, Latte, Hesychit alexandrini Lexicon, 1 Copenhagen 1953, XLV, n. 3: “Quaestionem
de textu Scripturae in glossis illis et apud Cyrillum obvio tractare non meum est,
sed cum horum documentorum per CL. annos in investigandis Scripturae codicibus
theologi plane obliti sint, monendi sunt hic exstare antiquissimis codicibus fere
aequales, qui non solum Hexaplac lectiones exhibeant partim adhuc incognitas ...
sed in universum adeo cum codicum A, interdum etiam B lectionibus conspirent,
ut “Aegyptiae” quam vocant recensionis documenta pretiosissima habenda sint.”

246 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

1. Most of this text is free from Hexaplaric additions.

2. Against the Hebrew text it often has a plus missing from the
Hexaplaric recension.

3. It preserves the word order of the old LXX, whereas in the
Hexaplaric recension the word order is as in Hebrew.

4. It contains free translation from the original text, translations
which in the other recensions are adapted to the Hebrew.

5. However, these manuscripts have also undergone the influence of
the Hexaplaric recension.

As can be seen, these characteristics are not recensional criteria that
are maintained in a consistent way. This is why we have spoken of
an Alexandrian group of manuscripts due to the difficulty of iden-
tifying them with one particular recension.

SeLect BrBiioGRAPHY

Bauer, W., “Hesychius”, in RGG, Tubingen 1959, II, 299.
Bousset, W., “Die Rezension des Hesychius”. Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament.
TU 11, 4 (1894), 74-110.
Cox, C. E., “Cyril of Alexandria’s Text for Deuteronomy”. BIOSCS 10 (1977),
31-51.
Fernandez Marcos, N., “El texto biblico de Didimo en el Comentario a Zacarias
del Papiro de Tura”. Sefarad 36 (1976), 267-84.
~~~, “gRasgos dialectales en Ja xoivn tardia de Alejandria?”. Emerita 39 (1971),
33-45,
Gehman, H. S., “fhe Hesychian Influence in the Versions of Daniel”. JBL 48
(1929), 329-32.
Jellicoe, S., “The Hesychian Recension Reconsidered”. JBL 82 (1963), 409-18.
SMS, 146-56.
Kenyon, F. G., “Hesychius and the Text of the New Testament”. Mémonal Lagrange,
Paris 1940, 245-50.
Rahlfs, “Alter und Heimat der vaticanischen Bibelhandschrifi”, NGWGétt Phil-
Hist. Klasse 1899, [, 72-79.
, Septuaginia-Studien I]. Der Text des Septuaginia Psalters, Gottingen 1907.
Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 79-80.
Vaccari, A., “The Hesychian Recension of the Bible”. Bib 46 (1965), 60-66.
Wevers, J. W., “Septuagint”, in IDB, New York 1962, IV, 275.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

OTHER REVISIONS

The three classic recensions noted by Jerome have been reduced to
two, the Hexaplaric and the Lucianic in most books of the Greek
Bible. Furthermore, in the Pentateuch, it has been possible to iden-
tify only the Hexaplaric recension together with a large group of
catenary manuscripts and other new familics or textual groups.' This
means that the textual history of the LXX has become much more
complex than was thought at the start of critical studies, and it also
changes from book to book. For certainly, before these recensions,
traces could be found of a varied work of revision that took place
throughout the first stages of the transmission of the Greek Bible.
Some of these revisions affect the LXX in. the first stage of its his-
tory; they are therefore pre-Hexaplaric, and come to the fore in
research after the finds at Qumran, as they directly affect the the-
ory of a plural Hebrew text. Today we know that the work of revis-
ing the Greek Bible began, so to speak, the day after the translation
of the Pentateuch.2 These revisions are of primary importance for
knowledge of the pre-Hexaplaric text, together with new Hebrew
and Greek texts that have emerged among the documents from the
Desert of Judah.

There are other revisions that affect a smaller or larger number
of manuscripts and are difficult to fix chronologically, but they are
all independent of the great recensions mentioned by ancient
writers. We can set them out under the heading of para-Hexaplaric
revisions.

a) Pre-Hexaplaric Revisions

There are two pre-Hexaplaric revisions that in recent years have
been identified with certain systematic and consistent features: the
xoye revision which comprises a series of corrections to adapt the

' See J. W. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies”, 26.
2 “There is a continuum from the Greck Pentateuch to Aquila in which approaches

248 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

original LXX to a proto-Masoretic type of Hebrew text in Ist cen-
tury BcE Palestine;? and the proto-Lucianic revision which claims to
correct the original LXX in Palestine in the 2nd—Ist centuries BcE,
according to a Hebrew text of the Palestinian type, remains of which
have been preserved in 4QSam*. It is present in the Antiochene
group of manuscripts as well as in the biblical quotations of Flavius
Josephus and in the Old Latin. This revision also has a stylistic com-
ponent that tends to improve the Greek of the translation.*

It has not been possible to identify either of these two revisions
in the Pentateuch. Furthermore, recent studies have required slight
changes to certain points of view held by Barthélemy in his pro-
grammatic monograph on the predecessors of Aquila. Rather than
a uniform and monolithic work, today one prefers to speak of a
group of texts, all within the frame of a process of making the orig-
inal LXX close to the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text, but with a range
of characteristics. Munnich has emphasised the influence that the
translation of the Psalter had on the choices of translation in this
group of texts.° And Gentry, in analysing the astcrisked passages of
Job, finds similarities as well as dissimilarities with other members
of the group, especially the scroll of the Twelve Prophets from Nahal
Hever and the Greck Psalter.* We find ourselves, therefore, before
a tradition that shares the same attitude towards the translation in
which a revision of a Hebraising type is carried out and to which
would belong the group of texts analysed by Barthélemy that stand
out for the consistent and systematic nature of the corrections and
the application of the hermencutics of the Palestinian rabbinate.’

There are still many other indications of pre-Masoretic textual
pluralism,’ but what interests us now is the relationship of these

and attitudes to translation are on the whole tending toward a closer alignment
between the Greek and the Hebrew,” see P. Gentry, The Asterisked Maierials in the
Greek Fob, 497.

* See D. Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d'un chainon manquant”, and Barthélemy,
Les Dewanciers d’Aquila.

* Not all specialists accept this second revision. The bibliography on these two
pre-Hexaplaric revisions is enormous. For a more detailed study see chapter 9,
pp. 148-53, and the section on the Proto-Lucianic in chapter |4, pp. 232-36.

> ©, Munnich, “Contribution a Pétude de la premiére révision de la Septante”.

* P. Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job, 495-99.

7 J. W. Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies”, has expressed him-
self on similar lines.

® See F. Perez Castro, “Antiguo Testamento. Historia del texto hebreo”, Gran
Enciclopedia RIALP 2 (1971), 359-66; and Pérez Castro, “La transmisién del texto

OTHER REVISIONS 249

Greck revisions to the various Hebrew textual types. In fact, due to
the discoveries of the Dead Sea, we have been able to determine
how the various Hebrew textual families have left clear traces in the
origin and transmission of the LXX. Following the theory of local
texts developed by Cross,® which depends on the larger amount of
material in the books of Samucl~Kings, three stages can be distin-
guished in the history of transmission:

1. The Egyptian textual type which served as the basis for the
early LXX, ¢. 3rd century Bce, related to the Palestinian and from
which perhaps it became independent in the 4th century pcr. In
Qumran it is represented by 4QEx* and 4QJer®.

2. The proto-Lucianic revision made in the 2nd-Ist centuries BCE
in order to make the early LXX conform to the Hebrew text then
current in Palestine, represented in Qumran by 4QSam*, and within
the LXX by the manuscripts boc,e, in Samuel~Kings, the Hebrew
text of Chronicles and biblical quotations in Josephus. It also occurs
in the sixth column of the Hexapla (€’) throughout 2 Sam. 11:2-1
Kgs 2:11, probably due to confusion of this siglum for Theodotion
with the one for Theodoret.’°

We cannot determine exactly how long it was. It has not emerged
in the Pentateuch. In Joshua—Judges~Ruth it is increasingly more
defined in manuscripts gin dpt of Brooke-McLean. As we saw in
another section,'! it is very difficult to separate in the Antiochene
text the material belonging to the proto-Lucianic revision of the old
LXX on the one hand, from the late layer of the Lucianic recension
on the other. On the other hand, apparently the proto-Lucianic revi-
sion was limited to corrections making the old LXX conform to the
Palestinian Hebrew text of the 2nd-lst centuries BcE, but it also has
an unavoidable component of stylistic and grammatical corrections.’

del Antiguo ‘Testamento”, Sagrada Biblia. Versién critica sobre los textos hebreo, arameo y
griego, ed. F. Cantera and M. Iglesias, Madrid 1975, XV-XXXVIL.

* TM. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text”, and Cross, “The Evolution
of a Theory of Local Texts”, 1975, 306-20.

"" See chapter 14, p. 235 R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, 71-73,
includes three criteria to identify proto-Lucianic readings already noted by Cross.

!§. P. Brock, “Lucian ‘redivivus’: Some Reflections on Barthélemy’s ‘Les
Devanciers d’Aquila’”, Studia Evangelica V, Berlin 1968, 176-81. Howard maintains
that Josephus depended on at least two text types, preserved in the Antiochene text
and in the xetye revision, see G. Howard, “xatye Readings in Josephus”, Textus 8
(1973), 45-54, and Howard, “The ‘Aberrant’ Text of Philo’s Quotations Reconsidered”,
HUCA 44 (1973), 197-211.

250 THE SEPTUAGINT IN GHRISTIAN TRADITION

3. A text due to the second revision of the LXX (or parts of it}
undertaken in Palestine from the lst century Bce to make it fit a
proto-Masoretic Hebrew text: it is the katye revision or Theodotionic.

This third text type is represented in Hebrew by 4QJer* and in
the Twelve Prophets by the Vorlage of the Greek fragments from
Nahal Hever published by Barthélemy. It is also found in the quinta of
the Psalter.’ In Samucl—Kings-LXX it has displaced the original
LXX in the By section (2 Sam. 11:2-1 Kgs 2:11) and yé (2 Kings).
The extent of this recension as well as on the main characteristics
of this group can be judged from Barthélemy’s work and later work
on the topic.'*

Thus there are three Hebrew text families: one Palestinian of an
expansionist nature; another Egyptian, generally but not always com-
plete, closely related to the Palestinian in its oldest phase of the Pen-
tateuch (but not in Jeremiah where there are appreciable differences);
and another Babylonian with a preference for a short text where
it is preserved (Pentateuch and former Prophcts).'°

In spite of Howard’s harsh criticism of this theory of local texts,'®
of Talmon’s insistence on the sociological dimension of the texts,!’
and of the emphasis on textual diversity defended by Tov,'* with
some modifications it has proved to be valid for interpreting the new

‘SH. J. Venetz, Die Quinia des Psalteriums. Ein Beitrag zur Sepluaginta- und Hexaplaforschung,
Hildesheim 1974, 50-72.

‘DPD. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 48-78. And also J. A. Grindel, “Another
Characteristic”; M. Smith, “Another Criterion”; J. D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional
Development, 113-16. Shenkel proposes a series of new characteristics of this recen-
sion, in particular the use of SidKew for rédaf instead of the Katadidxew of the
original LXX and of the proto-Lucianic; the use of words from the root cog- for
hakam as against words from the root ppov- in the LXX and proto-Lucianic; ovwmiv
for haras and fasé against kmet_ew of the LXX, etc. See also O. Munnich, “Con-
tribution a P’étude de Ja premiére révision de la Septante”, 205-17, and P. Gentry,
The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job, 389--402.

© R.W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, 70-71. In Samuel, for exam-
ple, the Egyptian text would be found in the Vorlage of the old LXX; the Palestinian
text would be reflected in the Hebrew text of Chronicles, in 4QSam*, in the proto-
Lucianic text of the Antiochene manuscripts and in the biblical text used in Josephus
and translated by the Old Latin. Finally, the Babylonian text would be found in
the Hebrew Vorlage of the xatye revision.

” §. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Oudook”, Qumran and
the History of the Biblical Text, 321-400.

'8 E. Tov, “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls”, HUCA
3 (1982), 11-27, and Tov, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert:
“heir Contribution to Textual Criticism”, 77S 39 (1988), 5-37.

OTHER REVISIONS 251

information from Qumran.'* Complete publication of this material
and an exhaustive study of the manuscript tradition would help to
clarify even more details and to determine the particular situation
of each book. One thing scems clear in connection with the LXX:
the appearance in Qumran of Hebrew texts similar to the Vorlage
uscd by the translators of the LXX in books such as Jeremiah or
Samuel should put us on our guard against interpreting the appar-
ent discrepancies of that version from the Hebrew original. In fact,
these discrepancies have become a very important tool for the criti-
cal restoration of the original in certain biblical books, and they
even affect literary history when they reflect two different editions
of those books.

Apart from these two early revisions of the LXX, which are more
systematic and have helped to throw light on the history and devel-
opment of the consonantal Hebrew text before it was finally fixed,
two other lesser revisions have been identified from internal criti-
cism. They reflect the intense activity of revision carried out before
Origen, and they provide us with a revitalised image of a shadowy
phase in the transmission of the LXX: the proto-Septuagint. They
are revisions of a few books that at one time perhaps were longer
and are attested in certain manuscripts of the LXX but not in the
mainstream of its tradition. P. Katz refers to a series of pre-Hexaplaric
rapprochements with the Hebrew text in the Coptic translations of
the Twelve Prophets, in the text of Papyrus Washingtonianus (W), in
Pap 967, and in Papyrus Antinoopolitanus on Ezckiel and Proverbs.”

'. See E. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions
of Canon”, 25-29, Ulrich analyses the three theories of Cross, Talmon and Tov,
not as contradictory but as complementary, since each stresses different aspects of
the transmission. Despite accepting some corrections to the theory of local texts, to
some extent contradicted by the data from Qumran, he continues to defend it as
the only valid attempt at an overall explanation of the history of the biblical text
in the first centuries of its transmission. See also F. M. Cross, “Some Notes on a
Generation of Qumran Stuclies”, 6~10.

” P. Katz, “Friihe hebraisicrende Rezensionen der Septuaginta”. See also
J. Ziegler, Septuaginta... XV1,2 Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco, Gottingen 1954, 78, and
Ziegler, “Die Bedeutung des Chestcr-Beatty-Scheide 967”. Both Papyrus 967 and
the Antinopolis papyrus are close to the Hebrew text, the second more than the
first, see G, Zuntz, “Der Antinoe Papyrus der Proverbia”, and E. Wiirthwein, Der
Text des Alien Testaments, Stuttgart 1966, 172: “Die grésste Bedeutung hat der Pap
967 deshalb, weil er deutlich zeigt, dass bereits in vorhexaplarischer Zeil (vielleicht
schon im 1. Jahrhundert n, Ch.) die Ez.-LXX nach dem heb hen ‘Text kor-
rigiert wurde.” For a description and commentary on the main features of this

252 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Another fragment from Qumran Cave 7, 7Q)LXXEx, shows that
already around 100 pce the LXX was revised to bring it closer to
the Hebrew text.?!

Gooding has discovered about 235 variants in Deuteronomy that
make the Greek text agree with the Hebrew. These corrections are
the result of a conscious revision, independent of Origen and prob-
ably made before him.”

However, some of these witnesses, which carlier studies consid-
ered to be pre-Hexaplaric revisions, have had to be relinquished
once the history of the text was correctly stratified for preparing criti-
cal editions. This is the case for Papyrus Rylands gr. 458 from the
2nd century Bce, considered to be Lucianic by Vaccari and placed
by Wevers among witnesses of the old LXX.?* Or 4QLXX Num,
revised according to the Hebrew in Skehan’s opinion,” in which the
corrections are literary rather than Hebraising retouches.*> This is
an indication that, although there are clear signs of pre-Hexaplaric
revisions, only an exhaustive study of the history of the text for each
book will allow the real nature of these witnesses to be determined.

b) Para-Hexaplaric Revisions

These affect exclusively the Greek transmission of certain books. Due
to being very late and to their special characteristics, they are of no
interest for any question connected with the Hebrew Vorlage. They
were discovered in studying the text for the critical editions of
Gottingen.

The q recension
Hanhart discovered it for 2 and 3 Maccabees in mss 71, 74, 107,
102, 130, 370 and 371.7° Unlike the Lucianic recension (L), the few

papyrus, see M. Fernandez-Galiano, “Nuevas paginas del Gédice 967 del A. T.
griego (Ez. 28,19-43,9) [PMatr bibl 1]”, Studia Papyrolagica 10 (1971), 7-77.

*" ©, Munnich, “Le texte de la Septante”, 157-58. On the Hebraising revision
of 7Q]1, see J. W. Wevers, “Pre-Origen Recensional Activity in the Greek Exodus”,
122-23.

2 D. W. Gooding, Recensions of the Septuagint Pentateuch, Of.

% J. W. Wevers, “The Use of the Versions for ‘Text Criticism: The Septuagint”,
La Septuaginta, 20.

* PW. Skehan, “4QLXX Num: A Pre-Christian Reworking of the Septuagint”.

* ©, Mumnich, “Le texte de la Septante”, 157.

OTHER REVISIONS 253

additions of this revision are not to ornament and explain the text
(except in 2 Mac. 11:13 and 15:18) but are exclusively grammatical
or stylistic in nature. The twenty cases in which an expression is
altered do not allow any particular tendency in the revision to be
recognised, since most are changes of synonym. Other deeper intru-
sions in the text are conditioned by the presence of difficult or cor-
rupt passages (2 Mac. 8:33 and 13:15). The g recension is closer to
the original form of the LXX than the Lucianic recension; its tex-
tual changes are rare and superficial.

The a recension
For the book of Esther and | Ezra, their editor Hanhart has dis-
covered this recension in minuscules 71, 74, 76, 106, 107, 120, 130,
236, 314, 370, 7627’ and with some variation in Tobit. In Esther it
represents a recension of the Septuagintal text (0’) which sometimes
alone and sometimes together with other witnesses transmits 200
variants to us. No recensional principle can be found in it that is
followed consistently. It is related somewhat to the ¢ recension of
Maccabees. Its grammatical forms are more Atticising than Hellenising.
As in g, the additions and omissions are based almost exclusively on
style; however there are also some ornamental and explanatory addi-
tions lacking in g. The contacts with the old tradition of adjusting
the Greck to the Hebrew text (preserved particularly in the Hexaplaric
and Lucianic recensions) cannot be due to chance.

The characteristics in 1-2 Ezra and in Judith are very like those
in the book of Esther: almost all the variants comprise changes of
synonym. The additions and transpositions are stylistic.

The b recension

It occurs in mss 46, 64, 98, 243, 248, 381, 728 and 731 of the book
of Esther and in the same minuscules of 1-2 Ezra and Judith” and,
with some variations, in Tobit. There are only about 100 variants
in Esther. The additions and omissions are of no importance; the
transpositions are more common than in the @ recension. In the

27 R. Hanhart, Esther, 81°84; Hanhart, Septuaginta VIIT/4 Fudith, Gouingen 1979,
23; Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des 1. Esrabuches, 28-30, and Hanhart, Septuaginta . . .
VII/2 Esdrae Liber H, Gottingen 1993, 30-31.

% R. Hanhart, Esther, 84-87; Hanhart, Judith, 23-25; Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte
des 1. Esrabuches, 31-32, and Hanhart, Esdrae Liber H, 30-31.

254 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

grammatical forms, Atticisms occur and sporadically other forma-
tions from late Hellenism. It is not content with a few changes in
the Septuagintal text but also incorporates old recensional material
from Lucian and Origen. When accompanied by Vaticanus or a few
mixed codices or even when they agree with the Hexaplaric recen-
sion, both the 4 and the a recensions are witnesses of the original
text. However, a and 4 together, with no other accompanying manu-
script, never represent the original text. In some variants of a sec-
ondary nature the a and 6 recensions are related to each other, a
fact which is due to late post-Hexaplaric tradition. In 1-2 Ezra, the
characteristics of the 6 recension are very like those of the book of
Esther; it has the same inconsistency with respect to the insertion of
Attic and Hellenistic forms.

The L-text of Esther

This text is not a recension of the LXX but comprises a new rework-
ing of the Greek tradition of Esther supported to a large extent by
the Septuagintal text (0’} of that book.” The o’-text and the L-text
of Esther are related to each other, to judge from the long passages
where divergence is minimal. Several passages show that in these
cases 0’ is the base and L is a reworking. On other occasions L is
so free in respect of the o’-text that it can only be understood as a
new arrangement or reworking of material from a tradition inde-
pendent :of the o’-text: this reworking is particularly evident in
periphrastic translations, many abbreviations and in small explana-
tory additions that only the L-text transmits. The Atticising tendency
is not applied systematically. Furthermore, L preserves many expres-
sions that correspond to a later stage of Greek. Lexicographical exam-
ination leads to the same conclusions: when it diverges from the
o’-text it remains basically in the area of late Hellenistic Greek, very
close to the lexicon of Sira and Maccabees.

The L-text has no connection with the Lucianic recension, con-
trary to appearances at first glance. Its main feature, the conscious
shortening of the text, is not a principle of the Lucianic recension.
The Atticising tendency is not enough for identifying a recension

* R. Hanhart, Esther, 87-99. It was given the siglum L, to denote Lucian, because
it is transmitted by mss 19, 93, 108 and 319, the first three Lucianic or Antiochene
manuscripts in the historical books, even though in fact they have no connection
with that recension.

OTHER REVISIONS 255

since Atticism is very widespread in late antiquity. Nor has it been
possible to prove, for lack of witnesses, that the Antiochene Fathers
knew only the L-text, nor that this text is due to the recensional
work of that school.

Although it has contacts with Theodotion, as a whole the L-text
is not at all Theodotionic. Nor are there criteria for classing it as
proto-Lucianic. The confusion is due to de Lagarde that this text
transmits mss 19, 93, 108 and 319, all of which, in the historical
books, have a Lucianic text.>* Tov considers text L to be a transla-
tion based on the LXX translation, but corrected in agreement with
a Hebrew or Aramaic text that is different from the Masoretic text.
The result is a midrashic type of reworking of biblical history.”!
Haelewyck, instead, postulates two stages for the origin of text L.”
The textual history of the book of Esther tends to become compli-
cated if we take into account the new Aramaic fragments of that
book found in Qumran Cave 4, the relationship of which to the
Hebrew and Greek texts of Esther are still far from being explained.
In addition, two recent monographs by Jobes and De Troyer have
contributed, from different perspectives, to the renewal of interest in
the L-text of Esther.™

The Greek text of Tobit has been transmitted in two different
forms and partially in three. The relationship between them in terms
of kinship is not easy to determine. Above all, the priority of one
text over another still remains undetermined today. However, here

* However an explanation would have been necessary since two of these man-
uscripts, 93 and 108, transmit both texts o’ and L for Esther.

EB, Tov, “The ‘Lucianic’ ‘Text of the Canonical and the Apocryphal Sections
of Esther”.

% J.-C. Haelewyck, “Le texte dit ‘ucianique’ du livre d’Esther”.

% See J.-T. Milik, “Les modéles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de
Qumran”, RQ 15 (1992), 32199.

4 KOHL Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic
Text, Atlanta, Ga. 1996; Kristine de Troyer, Het einde van de Alpha-tekst van Esther:
Vertaal- en verhaal-techniek van MT 8, 1-17, LXX 8, 1-17 en AT 7, 14-41, Leuven 1997,

% Cf R. Hanhart, Septuaginta VI/5 Tobit, Gouingen 1983, 31-36.

Among the para-Hexaplaric recensions should be included also the recension
called R (“Rezension unbekannter Herkunft”) which Rahlfs detected for Ruth, Judges
and Kings and the recension R which Katz identified in certain manuscripts of
Philo for a series of conflicting quotations from the Pentateuch, see A. Rahlfs, Das
Buch Ruth griechisch als Probe einer kritischen Handausgabe der Septuaginta, Stuttgart 1922,
and P. Katz, Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in some Phitonic Writings
and ils Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible, Cambridge 1950, 98-103. See
also E. Tov’s review of 5. Jellicoe, SMS.

256 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

we are probably leaving the field of para-Hexaplaric recensions to
enter the problem of duplicate texts of the LXX, which we have
discussed elsewhere.**

Serect BrsuiocRaPHy

Barthélemy, D., Les Devanciers d’Aquila. VTS 10, Leiden 1963.
“Redécouverte d@’un chainon manquant de Vhistoire de la LXX”. RB 60
(1953), 18-29.
Brock, S. P., “To Revise or not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translations”.
Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognale Writings, 1992, 301-38.
Cross, F. M., “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies”. The Madrid Qumran
_ Congress, 1992, 114.
“The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical
“Text”, IFZ 16 (1966), 81-95.
; “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts”. Qumran and the History of the
Biblical Text, ed. F. M. Cross and S, Talmon, Cambridge, Mass.-London 1975,
306-20.
~, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean
Desert”. HTR 57 (1964), 281-301.
Gentry, P. J., The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job, Aanta, Ga. 1995.
Gooding, D. W., Recensions of the Septuagint Pentateuch, London 1955.
Greenspoon, L., “Recensions, Revisions, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and
Early Developments in the Greek Traditions”. Textus 15 (1990), 153-67.
Grindel, J. M., “Another Characteristic of the xatye Recension”. CBQ 31 (1969),
499-513.

Haelewyck, J.-C., “Le text dit hvraarint du livre d’Esther. Son étendue et sa
cohérence”. Le Muséon 98 (1985), 5

Hanbart, R., Septuaginta VIII, 3 Esther, Canin 1966, 81-95.

Sepluaginta IX, 2 Maccabaeorum Liber Il, Gottingen 1959, 24 ss,

Septuaginta IX, 3 Maccabacorum Liber Il, Géttingen 1960, 2832.

- Text und Textgeschichte des 1. Esrabuches. MSU XII, Gottingen 1974.

Katz, P., “Friihe hebraisierende Rezensionen der Septuaginta”. Z4W 69 (1957),

77-84.

“The Recovery of the Original Septuagint: A Study in the History of
Transmission and Textual Criticism”. Actes du I” Congrés de la Fédération Internationa
le des Associations d’Etudes Classiques, Paris 1951, 165-82.

Klein, R. W., Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: From the Septuagint to Qumran,
Philadelphia 1974.

Leancy, A. R., “Greek Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert”. Studies in Naw Testament
Language and Text, ed. J. K. Elliot, Leiden 1976, 283-300.

I am not including other revisions that cover shorter sections within a book, such
as the revision of chapter 66 of Isaiah-LXX. In Ziegler’s opinion this chapter has
so many new words compared to the rest of Isaiah that there must have been a
recensional re-working of it, see J. Ziegler, Untersuchungen zum LXX des Buches Isaias,
Miinster 1934, chap. I. Similarly, in the review cited, p. 86, E. Tov mentions Ez.
28-39 as a late revision according to D. Barthélemy; Ez. 1-27 according to E. H.
Kase, and Jer. 29-52 according to J. Ziegler.

% See chapter 6, p. 99.

OTHER REVISIONS 257

Lifshitz, B., “he Greek Documents from the Cave of Horror”. [EJ 12 {1962},
201-207.

Munnich, O., “Contribution 4 Pétude de la premiére révision de ta Sepiante”.
ANRW Ti, 20, 1 (1987), 190-220.

~—--—, “Le texte de la Septante”. Hari et al., La Bible grecque des Sepiante, 157-61.

O'Connell, K. G., Greek Versions (Minor). IDBS, Abingdon 1976, 377-81.

—--, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus, Harvard 1972.

Schreiner; J. “Zum B-Text des griechischen Canticum Deborae”. Bib 42 (1961),
333-5 ecially 357-58.

Shenkel, J. D., Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, Harvard
1968.

Skehan, P. W., “4QLXX Num: A Pre-Christian Reworking of the Septuagint”.
LTR 70 (1970), 39-50.

Smith, M., “Another Criterion for the xaiye Recension”. Bib 48 (1967), 443-45.

Tov, E., Review of The Septuagint and Modern Study by S. Jellicoe, in RB 77 (1970),
84-91.

—~~—, “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and the Apocrypha! Sections of
Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book”. Textus 10 (1982), 1-25.

Ulrich, E. E., “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups and Questions of
Canon”. The Madrid Qumran Congress, 1992, 23-41.

Vermes, G., review of Les Deanciers d’Aquila, in JSS 11 (1966), 261-64.

Wevers, J. W., “Barthélemy and Proto-Sepmagint Studies”. BIOSCS 21 (1988), 23-34.

Ziegler, J., “Die Bedeutung des Chester-Beatty-Scheide Papyrus 967 fiir die
Texttiberlieferung der Ezechiel-LXX”. ZAW 20 (1945-48), 76-94.

Zuntz, G., “Der Antinoe Papyrus der Proverbia und das prophetologion”. ZAW 68
(1956), 124-84.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS

The breadth of this topic forces us to tackle some questions of
methodology of particular interest for the history of the LXX, refer-
ring to other more specific publications for further details on aspects
only mentioned here.

We can distinguish two blocks of quotations of the Greek Bible:

1. pre-recensional or pre-Hexaplaric quotations;
2. quotations from writers later than the mid-3rd century.

The first kind affect either the origins of the LXX, its initial unity
or pluralism ~ Kahle bases his Targumic theory of the origins of
the LXX on these — or at least they affect the textual pluralism of
the pre-Hexaplaric LXX. In this chapter, quotations must be included
that are preserved in inscriptions and papyri up to the 3rd century
CE, quotations of or possible contact with LXX in the Jewish-Hellenistic
historians, Philo, Josephus, pseudepigraphic writings preserved in
Greek prior to the 3rd century cE, the New Testament, Qumran,
some Gnostic writings, the Apostolic and Apologist Fathers.

From the 3rd century onwards, if we except some inscriptions and
late papyri, we only come across biblical quotations from the LXX
in the writings of the Fathers. Such quotations, could affect funda-
mentally the problem of recensions and act as an external criterion
for identifying them.

Signs of caution and mistrust continually arise concerning this
material and its use for critical purposes in editing the LXX.' In
fact it can be stated that the question of biblical quotations is the
weakest point of the Cambridge and Géttingen editions:’ the absence

' An example of the critical attitude of an editor of the LXX towards Patristic
quotations can be seen in J. Ziegler, “Jeremias-Zitate in Vater-Schriften”.

? See the review by E. Hautsch of the Cambridge edition Vol. L, 1-2, in Géthingische
Gelehrte Anzeigen 7 (1909), 563-80. The main defects to which he refers are: no dis-
tinction is made between authentic and false writings by Chrysostom; lemma and
commentary are not discussed separately; all the quotations are given the same
value without noting when they come from another context; and it is not taken
into account that Theodoret and particularly Chrysostom, quote freely or simply

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 259

of critical editions of the Fathers, the process of quoting from mem-
ory, the adaptation to context, the mixed quotations due to assimi-
lation of different passages, the influence of parallel passages, etc.,
all compel the deepest reserve when using them as witnesses of a
genuine biblical text. Representatives of this position of maximum
caution in respect of biblical quotations are Ziegler and Rahifs and,
in general, the Géttingen school, in spite of the importance accorded
them by de Lagarde.’

Other scholars more familiar with patrology and the history of
exegesis take a much more optimistic stance. Unlike Rahifs, Boismard
does not always give preference to manuscripts against the readings
from the Fathers. He analyses a series of examples in which the tra-
dition agrees against the main manuscripts to show that in many
cases the reading in the Fathers is to be preferred. It is worth remem-
bering that we only have four uncials from the 5th century from
among the mass of manuscripts that the Fathers knew and used.
There are pre-Hexaplaric papyri that provide variants that have dis-
appeared from the rest of the manuscript tradition and yet have
been preserved in the Fathers.‘ In other words, the quotations in
the Fathers, used with due caution, comprise material that cannot
be ignored. Projects under way at present, such as the compilation
of a photographic record of all the patristic quotations,> are good
proof of that. Although directed towards the history of exegesis, the

give the biblical narrative. An example in respect of the Géttingen edition is the
witness by J. Ziegler for the Twelve Prophets: “Deshalb verdienen die Angaben im
App. ‘Cyr? und ‘Cyr.’ nicht unbedingtes Vertrauen. Die gerade im Beziegung auf
die Bibeltexte ungeniigende Ausgabe von Pusey ist schuld daran,” see J. Ziegler,
“Der Bibeltext des Cyrill von Alexandrien zu den zwélf kleinen Propheten in den
Druck-Ausgaben”, Betiréige zum griechischen Dodekapropheton. Nachr. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu
Gittingen, Philol.-ffist. Klasse, 1943 (= Sepiuaginia Arbeiten, Nr. 2, p. 412). See also
N. Fernandez Marcos, “El texto biblico de Didimo en el Comentario a Zacarias
del Papiro de Tura”, Sefarad 36 (1976), 267-84.

3 J. Ziegler, “Jeremias-Zitate in Vater-Schriften”, and A. Rahlfs, Sepiuaginta-Studien
I. Studien zu den Kinigsbiichem, Gottingen 1904, p. 43: “Als Resultat unserer Unter-
suchung ergibt sich, dass Theodorets Zitate zur Herstellung eines urspriimglicheren
L-Textes, als er uns in den Hss. vorliegt, nicht benutzt werden kérmen. Sie sind
sehr wertvoll fir die Nachweisung der lucianischen Rezension in unsern
Bibelhandschriften, aber wo sie von den Hss. abweichen, haben di trotz ihrer
Jugend, doch das erste Wort su sprechen.”

* M. E. Boismard, “Critique textuelle et citations patristiques”, and G. Jouassard,
“Requéte d’un patrologue”.

> Carried out by the Centre of Patristic Analysis and Documentation of the
University of Strasbourg (CNRS) in France. For the publications by this team con-
nected with the Biblia Patristica, see Select Bibliography.

SE,

260 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

critical editions of the Greck Old and New Testaments of Gittingen
and Miinster continue to benefit from them, as do the editors of the
Vetus Latina in Beuron.

Without losing sight of our predominantly methodological approach
we shall now survey the main stages or nuclei of interest in the bib-
lical quotations in the various collections of writings of antiquity.

a) The Septuagint in Hellenistic Jewish Historians

Although only fragments of them have been preserved, several of
the Hellenistic Jewish historians show clear indications that they knew
the LXX. Rather than quotations, they represent contacts in lexi-
con and phrasing. Some of these fragments, such as the one of
Eupolemos (2nd century BcE), comprise a terminus ante quem for the
origin of the LXX. Similarly, Demetrius knows Genesis in Greek.*
Eupolemos has bequeathed to us the longest remnant of a Jewish-
Greek text earlicr than Philo: the narrative of the reigns of Joshua,
Samuel, Saul and David. His description of the dimensions of the
temple agree neither with the Hebrew text nor with the LXX.
Probably, following a procedure in use among Hellenistic Jewish his-
torians, he rewrites the past in the light of present history.’ He is
dependent on the LXX for the Hexateuch, but — against Freudenthal —
there are no proofs that he used the Greek version of Kings and
Ghronicles. He translates into Greek the technical terms transliter-
ated in the LXX. Artapanus (2nd century BcE) generally follows the
biblical account in the Exodus narrative, although he expands and
embellishes it. His knowledge of the LXX is beyond doubt; he
describes the miracles and plagues with the words of Ex-LXX, and
there is hardly any indication that he knew the Hebrew Bible.”
From the historian Aristeas (2nd/Ist century Bc), author of a nepi
iovdaimv, only a fragment of sixteen lines is preserved with narra-

® For the text of these fragments, see F. Jacoby (ed.), Die Hragmente der griechischen
Historiker, UL (1958), and A. M. Denis, Fragmenta Pseudepigraphoram quae supersunl graeca
una cum historicorum et auctorum judacorum hellenistarum fragmentis (published with
M. Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece), Leiden 1970, 175-28. An important edition,
with notes, is CG. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume I:
Historians, Chico, Calif. 1983; Volume I: Poets, 1989; Volume LL: Aristobulus, 1995.

7 N. Fernandez Marcos, “Interpretaciones helenisticas del pasado de Israel”, CFC
8 (1975), 157-86, and B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaco-Greek Literature,
New York 1974.

8 J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien I and U, Breslau 1875, 215-16.

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 261

tive sections from the book of Job inserted into the Genesis 36 nar-
rative. Aristeas is clearly dependent on the LXX of Job, but the epi-
logue of this version (Job 42:17b-e) is in turn dependent on Aristeas.

The historian Demetrius, who lived during the reign of Ptolemy
IV (221-204 scx), knew at least Gen-LXX. Of this we have seven
fragments which in the chronologies of the flood, the birth of Abraham
and the Exodus agree with the LXX against the Hebrew text, so
that perhaps he studied with the school that produced the LXX.
Apart from the translators of the Greck Pentateuch, he is the first
Jewish author known to write in Greek and the first to know the
Greek translation of the Law."

The lexicon and phraseology of the LXX also occur in Aristobulus
and Ezekiel the Tragedian."!

These quotations and allusions to the LXX are very important
for dating the translation. However, duc to their scarcity, the unsys-
tematic use of sources and the fragmentary nature of these writings
(apart from proving contacts with the Greek Bible) they scarcely help
to determine the actual text in the form known by these writers.
This situation has not improved with the publication of the most
recent studics.'

® Aristeas states that Bassara was Jobab’s (Job’s) mother due to a false inter-
pretation of Gen. 36:33 (éx Boséppas) and from confusing her with Basemath (Gen.
36:3) who gave birth to Jobab (Job), Esau’s son. Job-LXX in 42:17 corrects the
slip by Aristeas, but perpetuates his original mistake (untpdg S& Boodppag 42:17c).
The problem of the meaning of this epilogue in the LXX remains, which states
that he took him é« tig Zuptoxiis BiPAov (42:17b). Perhaps he is alluding to a lost
apocryphon of Job of which there are echoes in the Testament of Job, Bab. Batra
15b, Targum of Job 2:9 and Jerome in his commentary on Gen. 22:21. Aristeas
was also able to use this Palestinian source, see B. Z. Wacholder, “Aristeas”, 7 3
(1971), 438-39.

© See J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 4041 and 50-51. See also A. M.
Denis, Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes Grecs de UAncien Testament, Leiden 1970, 241ff.,
and E. J. Bickermann, “The Jewish Historian Demetrios”, Christianity, Judaism and
Other Greco-Roman Cults, 5 vols, J. Neusner (ed.), Leiden 1975, 3, 72-84.

H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 371. On the authen-
ticity of the fragments of Aristobulus and their importance for determining the ori-
gins of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch, see N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger
Aristobulos. Untersuchungen zu seinen Fragmenten und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der jiidisch-
hellenistischen Litertur (= TU 86), Berlin 1964, and D. Barthélemy, Pourquoi la Torah
a-t-elle été traduile en grec?, 248. For Ezckiel the Tragedian, see H. Jacobson, The
Exagoge of Ezekiel, Cambridge 1983.

® See B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 292-93.

262 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION
b) The Septuagint in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Another area as yet little known and scarcely used for the textual
criticism of the LXX comprises quotations in inter-testamental liter-
ature. This is due largely to a lack of critical editions of these books
and to their literary form, since many of them develop the great
biblical themes of the past in a midrashic way. Apart from two doc-
toral dissertations,'> the remaining bibliography in respect of these
writings does not come to grips with the problem of the biblical text
used by their authors.

The Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas knows and cites at least the Greek
Pentateuch. It cannot be proved with certainty that its author knew
the books of Kings.'*

The author of the book of Wisdom uses Exodus, Deuteronomy
and Isaiah. When he uses Old Testament material he never follows
the Hebrew text against the Greek. However, sometimes he departs
from the Hebrew text to follow one of the Greek versions. Mostly
he goes with the LXX but sometimes uses terms that we only know
through Symmachus.'*

‘SL. R. Hammill, “Biblical Interpretation in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”,
Diss. Chicago 1950, and J. K. Zink, “The Use of the Old Testament in the
Apocrypha”, Diss. Durham (North Carolina) 1963. See G. Delling, Bibtiographie zur
jidisch-hellenistischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur 1900-1965, Berlin 1968, 7311, and
the second edition of G, Delling and M. Maser, Bibhographie zur jiidisch-hellenistischen
und intertestamentarischen Literatur 1900-1970, TU 106, Berlin 1975.

\ See the edition of the Letter in H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament
in Greek, 551-606, which prints the biblical quotations in capital letters, and H. G.
Meecham, The Letter of Aristeas: A Linguistic Study with Special Reference to the Greek Bible,
Manchester 1935, 316-24. J. W. Wevers actually says: “In my own comparison of
the 3 Kingdoms, chapters 6-7, account of the temple and its furnishings with Aristeas
5782, I could find no evidence of literary relation between the two accounts, whe-
reas the correspondence between Aristeas and Ex. 25,23 f. seems completely con-
vincing,” see J. W. Wevers, “Proto-Septuagint Studies”, The Seed of Wisdom: Fs.
T. J. Meek, Toronto 1964, 63, n. 23.

© H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 371-72, and J. Fichtner,
“Der AT-Text der Sapientia Salomonis”. It does not seem as if the relationship of
the vocabulary of the book of Wisdom with that of Symmachus can be explained
by its great nearness in time (since it would be even closer in time to Aquila or
Theodotion!}. Fichtner reflects as follows: “Denn auch Symmachus hat bei seiner
Arbeit Vorlagen in dlteren griechischen AT-Ubersetzungen gchabt. Wir kénnen also
m. E. in der ‘Zitierung’ bei dem Verfasser der Sap. das Werden des griechischen
AT-Textes beobachten und miissen feststelien, dass mancherlei Rezensionen lange
Zeit nebeneinander her gelaufen sind. Dass wir in der Sap. Spiiren der Uberset-
zungsweise treffen, die wir aus den spateren Symmachus-Fragmenten kennen, ist
m. E, nicht unwichtig. Vielleicht lasst sich durch Untersuchungen 4hnlicher Art wie

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 263

Sira not only knows of the existence of the Pentateuch, Prophets
and ‘other writings’ but everywhere oozes the influence of LXX
phrascology. Even so, there is no systematic study of Sira’s attitude
to the other books of the Greek Bible that he knows and _uses.'®
Baruch rewrites the book of Jeremiah to fit his own time.'7

Nor has there been a formal study of the use made of the LXX
in the books of Maccabees in the Greek Old Testament. However
we know that 2 Mac. 7:6 contains a quotation of Dt. 32:36, and
that 4 Mac. 18:14ff includes a catena of quotations — all according
to the LXX — from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Ezekiel,
etc."* The biblical text of the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-
Philo, a work probably written before 100 cE, is related to the
Lucianic or proto-Lucianic manuscripts in Joshua—1 Samuel.” The
author of the Testament of Job knows a text of the LXX that has
already undergone recension, even though it is pre-Hcxaplaric and
comes from the region of Alexandria.”

Other pseudepigraphic writings have been studied more to throw
light on New Testament passages in terms of the use their authors
make of the Greek Old Testament.”" And apart from rare excep-
tions, the excellent introductions by Charles to these books or the
more recent editions of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testament, published in German, French, English, Italian or
Spanish, do not deal with the topic of which biblical text was used,
except in notes to isolated passages at most. Specialists have focused
primarily on fixing the text and the manuscript tradition and on
determining what the original Janguage could be.” However, it should

die hiermit vorgelegte noch manches Stiick der Friihgeschichte der griechischen AT-
Ubersetzung und ihrer spiiteren Revisionen aufhellen” (ibid. 192). In the light of
recent research on the early revisions of the LXX (see chapter 16), we are obliged
to accept this conclusion made in 1939.

‘6S See P. W. Skehan and A. A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, New York 1987,
40-46 and 55-56.

'” See A. Kabasale Mukenge, “Les citations internes en Ba. 1,15~3,8. Un procédé
rédactionnel et actualisant”, Le Muséon 108 (1995), 211-37.

* See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 372.

20 See B. Schaller, “Das Testament Hiobs”, 405-406.

2 See J. Jeremias, “Beobachtungen 2u neutestamentlichen Stellen an Hand des
neugefundenen griechischen Henoch-Buches”, ZNW 38 (1939), 115-24, and
M. Alberbach, “The Historical Allusions of Chapters IV, XI and XIII of the Psalms
of Salomon”, JOR 41 (1950-51), 379-96.

2 R.H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Hl: Pseudepigrapha,
Oxford 1913, with the exception of the Book of Jubilees (did, pp. 4f8) which agrees

264 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

not be forgotten that even parts of the Sibylline Oracles show the
influence of the LXX.?8

c) The Septuagint in Philo and Josephus

The quotations of these two Jewish writers have been studied par-
ticularly for ther privileged position in history as both witmess to
and check on the pre-Hexaplaric LXX.* P. Katz, a disciple of Kahle,
devoted a monograph to Philo,” which we considered in connection
with the origins of the LXX. The text followed by Philo in some
of his writings represents a lost recension of the Pentateuch — not a
different twanslation — similar to recension R which Rahlfs discov-
ered in the book of Ruth. Amaldez has carefully studied how Philo
uses the biblical text of the LXX and stresses the liberties that he
takes with that text, not hesitating to change it for the needs of his
argument or his exegesis. Philo approaches Scripture with a mind
already trained in Greek philosophy, Platonism, the Stoics and other
systems. His exegetical method allows him to draw the biblical text
towards the meaning he wishes to make. Although it is possible that
he consulted learned Jews who knew some Hebrew, it is preferable
to attribute the divergences of his text from the LXX to his own
exegesis.”°

more often with the LXX or combinations of the LXX than any other version.
The book of Enoch is also full of references and allusions to the Septuagintal text
(bid, 188ff., in the notes}. ‘The lack of an entry on the LXX in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha in the recent bibliography by C. Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint,
Leiden 1995, is indicative. See also J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
1, New York, 1983; 2, London, 1985; the German series Jidische Schrifien aus hel-
lenistisch-rimischer Zeit, published in Gitersloh since 1973; A. Dupont-Sommer and
M. Philonenko (eds.), La Bible. Eerits intertestamentaires, Paris 1987; P. Sacchi, Apocrifi
dell’Antico Testamento, 1, Turi 1981; 2, 1989, and A. Diez Macho (ed.), Apderifos del
Antiguo Testamento, 1-5, Madrid 1983-87,

* See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 372: Or. Sibyl. IL,
312 s&éyeuc is reminiscent of Ps. 78:3; and TI, 606 yerpoxotnta. céBovtec, & piyoucw
Bpotol odtoi is taken from Is. 2:19ff., see J. Geficken, Die Oracula Sibyllina, Leipzig
1902, ad locum.

* See CB 57-58 and BS 82-86.

*® See also the section on the Targumic origin of the LXX in chapter 4 above
and P. Katz, Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text, G. Howard, “The ‘Aberrant’ Text of Philo’s
Quotations Reconsidered”, HUCA 44 (1973), 197-211. Contra Katz, Howard states
that the ‘aberrant’ text of mss UF sometimes represents the text type used by Philo.
Tt would be like the text of the xatye revision. In this supposition, Philo would have
preserved onc of the earliest remains of the «aye revision in the Pentateuch unless
this text type is not to be identified compleicly with that of the Katye.

*° R. Arnaidez, “L’influence de la traduction des Septante”.

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 265

The biblical text used by Josephus in his writings has been stud-
ied in relation to the proto-Lucianic problem.”” At least from
1 Samuel to 1 Maccabees he seems to follow a Lucianic or Antiochene
type of text.”

d) The Septuagint in the New Testament, Apostolic Fathers and Apologists

For the complex problem of LXX quotations in the New Testament,
refer to chapter 21 below.” It is sufficient to note in this context
that these quotations belong to the process of early revisions that
the LXX underwent from very early on, and that age-old problems
such as the proto-Theodotionic question can be resolved within this
framework.*° On the other hand, every approach in the study of the
quotations that ignores the condition of the text of the pre-Hexaplaric
Septuagintal text seems to be mistaken. The important conclusion is
that most of the Old Testament quotations in the New follow the
text of the LXX in one of its known forms.*!

There is some bibliography for the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists.”
More work has been done on the quotations of Clement of Rome
and there is increasing interest in those of Justin, as he preserves
many readings of the xotye recension.

The advantage of the Letter of Clement of Rome is based on being
able to date it to around 95/96 ce in Rome, and that it contains
many quotations from the Old Testament. As happens in the New
Testament, Psalms and Isaiah are the books most cited by Clement.
In his monograph, Hagner prefers to consider clear quotations

7 See chapter 14, p. 233.

* See H, St J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian, pp. 75~100: “Josephus
and Judaism: His Biblical Text”: “The Josephan Biblical text is uniformly of this
Lucianic type from 1 Sam to 1 Mac” (tid, 85). Thackeray’s opinion has been
confirmed by recent research, see E. Ulrich, “Josephus’ Biblical Text for the Books
of Samuel”. For the biblical text used in the Pentateuch, see E. Nodet, Le Pentateuque
de Flavius Foséphe, and in Samuel—Kings, see V. Spottorno, “Flavio Josefo. Técnicals
de adaptacién”, and C. Begg, Josephus’ Account.

* See chapter 21, pp. 323-32.

*® See N. Fernandez Marcos, “La Biblia de los autores del Nuevo Testamento”.
3! See M. Harl, “La Septante et le Nouveau Testament: Jes citations”, Harl
al., La Bible grecque des Septante, 274-80, and G. J. Steyn, Sepiuagint Quotations.

® See CB 59~60.

*% TD. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 203-13; J. Smit Sibinga, The OT Text of
Jusin Martyr: 1 The Pentateuch, Leiden 1963; P. Katz, “Justin’s OT Quotations and
the Greek Dodekapropheton”, Studia Patristica | (1957) = TU 63, 543-53; P. Prigent,
Justin et UAncien Testament, Paris 1964.

266 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

provided with introductory formulae and deals only indirectly with
allusions.* Most of the quotations by Clement agree with the LXX,
although there are few strictly literal quotations. A small number
differ considerably from the LXX and others are so different that
of necessity they pose the problem of alternative quotations. In such
cases — since most quotations are so exact — a source different from
the LXX has to be postulated, before resorting to the respective
options of quotations from memory, adaptations to context or use
of collections of testimonia. Clement of Rome gives the impression
that he uses a much more mixed text than the Palestinian writers
of the New Testament had to hand.

In the case of Justin, although his work is only preserved in a sin-
gle 14th century manuscript, it can be concluded that in the Twelve
Prophets he often uses the xatye recension in his quotations, to the
extent that Barthélemy believes lost passages of this recension can
be reconstructed on the basis of those quotations.®

Smit Sibinga cannot decide to draw conclusions about the Pentateuch
until he has studied Justin’s attitude in relation to the rest of the
Greck Bible. However, it seems that the quotations from the Pentateuch
do not diverge so much from the Septuagintal text as in the Twelve
Prophets, although they contain much old and valuable material.
Many of them, including the variants that can be called archaic,
belong to a stage of the history of the LXX prior to the informa-
tion from our codices.”

As far as the slight divergence from the LXX in the Pentateuch
is concerned — even when Justin followed Palestinian texts in both
the Pentateuch and Twelve Prophets — normally the first recensions
of the Greek Bible deal first with books other than the Pentateuch,
in which the LXX is not very different from the Hebrew text.”

3D. A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments.

*% D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, 203-12.

% J, Smit Sibinga, The OT Text of Justin Martyr, 162, and the review by D, W.
Gooding in J7S 16 (1965), 187-92. A complete evaluation of Justin’s text in con-
nection with the oldest papyri, “the three”, the recensions of the LXX, the ‘Targumic
traditions and the other Christian testimonies will only be possible when the quo-
tations from the other books of the Old Testament have been studied.

* For the most exhaustive analysis of these quotations, see H. B. Swete, An
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 406-32, still valid with a few changes to take
into account the new approaches from the xotye recension. See also R. A. Kraft,
Epitre de Barnabé, Paris 1971, and A. B. Starrat, “The Use of the LXX in the Five
Books against Heresies by Irenacus of Lyon”, Diss., University of Harvard 1952.

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 267
ce) The Septuagint in Inscriptions and Papyri

There is an impressive number of biblical quotations in Greek inscrip-
tions and those from the Old Testament are much more frequent
than those from the New Testament.” The book cited most is the
book of Psalms (143 quotations from 48 different psalms). ‘The rest
of the Old Testament only has 16 quotations. The distribution of
finds by geographical area is as follows: 112 in Palestine and Syria
(86 in Upper Syria); 18 in Egypt, 7 in Asia Minor, 8 in Europe and
2 in Greece. These facts provided by L. Jalabert at the beginning
of the century need to be supplemented by those set out by
D. Feissel in a more recent study. They confirm the preference for
quotations from the Psalter, and show that inscriptions, generally
non-Christian, that are independent of the LXX, are rare. A Greek
inscription from Thessalonica that contains Num. 6:22-27, is taken,
apparently, from a Greek revision of the Pentateuch.” It is an excep-
tion for the LXX text to be seriously altered as in the case of the
mosaic of Mopsuestia which reproduces the story of Samson (Jgs
16:1-4). Apparently, the retouches come either from the Jewish tra-
dition of the Targum or from a rewritten text, Christian in origin
but similar to a Jewish Targum.*!

The point of interest of this geographical distribution is that it
provides important information for areas which, like Syria, have no
documentation in the form of papyri. Its real value is that they are
pinpointed geographically, are dated and remain on the margin of
the avatars of transmission by manuscript or papyrus with new copies
and frequent revisions.’? Some of these inscriptions contain the oldest
witnesses of the LXX for these passages such as the lead scroll of

See L. Jalabert and H. Leclercq, “Citations bibliques dans l’épigraphie”.
Compare this high number with the very few biblical quotations in the inscriptions
and papyri that are quite clearly Jewish in origin, see J. B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum
Judaicarum 1, Rome 1952. The first volume was re-published in New York (Ktav
Publishing House) 1975, with a Prolegomenon by B. Lifshitz. In this corpus it is more
a case of biblical phraseology than direct quotations. See also V. A. ‘T'cherikover,
A, Fuks and (M. Stern), Conus Papyrorum Fudaicarum, I-TIL, Cambridge Mass., 1957-64.
“ TD, Feissel, “La Bible dans les inscriptions grecques”, Le monde grec ancien et la
Bible, BTV 1, Paris 1984, 223-31.
See E. Tov, “Une inscription grecque d'origine samaritaine trouvée a
‘Thessalonique”, RB 81 (1974), 394-99.
*" Sce D. Feissel, “La Bible dans les inscriptions grecques”, 230, and R. Stichel,
“Die Inschriften des Samson-Mosaiks in Mopsue:
® See L. Jalabert and H. Leclercq, “Citations bibliques dans l’épigraphie”, 1746/1.

268 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Rodas, an amulet with Psalm 79 from the Ist~3rd centuries cr,
the inscription of Lapethus in Cyprus with Psalm 14 from the 4th
century CE or somewhat earlier,” or the ostracon of Judith 15:1-7 from
the 3rd century ce, which is the oldest fragment for this book since
the only papyrus known so far comes from the 5th century cr.”

Many of these quotations occur in a magical context and trans-
mit to us an interesting page of the popular piety of that time; they
are prophylactic formulae or Grotpénaia, written on lintels, door
frames and windows through which the evil spirits could slip. Others,
instead, occur in liturgical context in churches, synagogues or tombs.*®
They often reproduce the text of the LXX with small variants.
However, sometimes they preserve readings of great textual interest
such as the Amulet of Acre which contains the word xéotv, the
reading of Aquila and Theodotion for Ez. 9:2." At other times they
confirm isolated and important variants of some Septuagintal man-
uscripts such as the reading thy péyorpa instead of thy xetpo. of ms.
130 for Gen. 22:12 which continues to be a fapax in the edition of
Genesis by Wevers and is confirmed by a painting with an inscrip-
tion from the 10th century in Ballep Kilissé (Cappadocia).”

P. Collart distinguishes three groups of amulets with texts from
the Psalms:

1. composite amulets in which the psalms occur together with other
magical texts;

2. amulets with the continuous text of a psalm;

3. amulets in which isolated words from the psalms can be read.

® See A. Rahlfs, Sepiuaginta-Studien I, Gottingen 1907, |

* See A. Rahifs, Sepluaginta-Studien I, 16.

* The AT 33 (= Rahlfs 968), see. K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen
Papyri. [, Berlin-New York 1976, 98, and J. Schwartz, “Un fragment gree du livre
de Judith”.

© The inscription of Ps, 35:8-10 on the belly of a jar: peOvoOhcovtat xd mémntos
tod oikov cov (v. 9) is important and is probably a copy of the inscriptions that
refer to Dionysius or to drink, common on such vases. Perhaps the jar was intended
for liturgical use, see M. A, Steve and P. Benoit, “Une cruche avec inscription
biblique”.

* See E. Peterson, “Das Amulett von Acre”.

6 See G. de Jerphanion, “Une variante isolée @un manuscrit”, and J. W. Wevers,
Septuaginia... I Genesis, Géttingen 1974, ad. loc.

* P. Collart, “Psaumes ct amulettes”. See also N. Fernandez Marcos, “Motivos
judios en los Papiros Magicos Griegos”, Religion, supersticion 9 magia en la mundo Romano,
ed. J. Lomas, Cadiz 1985, 101-30, and A. Biondi, “Le citazioni bibliche nei papiri
magici greci”, Studia Papyrologica 20 (1981), 93-127, although the latter studies by
preference quotations fram the New Testament.

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 269

Without danger of exaggerating the importance of inscriptions for
textual criticism, it can be stated that sometimes they are useful to
delimit and specify geographically the sphere of influence of the
recensions.

f) Quotations from the Fathers and the Septuagint

Also in connection with the biblical text followed by the Fathers,
from the methodological point of view, the hypothesis of iestimonia
has to be considered since it could explain a large number of mixed
quotations, incorrect attributions, texts of unknown origin and even
agrapha.

The lestimonia are collections of biblical texts without a commen-
tary, correlated by a common theme. It is well attested that in late
antiquity, collections and anthologies of quotations and maxims from
famous authors were in circulation, called florilegia.*° When these col-
lections of texts comprise a chain of biblical quotations they are
given the name festimonia. The discovery of collections of testimonia in
the Qumran literature (4QT) requires us to go back to a pre-Christian
origin for this literary form.°*' However, where it developed most was
among Jewish Christians around central themes of the new religion
such as messianism, eschatology, the Law, the cross, the rejection of
Israel, the vocation of the gentiles. This is what recent studies have
shown. The criteria for specialists concerning the characteristics of
these collections and their use for establishing the biblical text vary
a great deal. A. Méhat has analysed these collections in the text of
Clement of Alexandria, and emphasises the problem of Literary criti-
cism that they pose when Clement does not take his texts directly

See H. Chadwick, “Florilegium”, RAC 7 (1969), 1131-59.

3 See F. Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in
English, Leiden 1996, 137-40.

~ For the messianic interpretation of certain readings from the LXX in the New
‘Testament, see M. Harl, “L’interprétation de la Septante dans le Nouveau Testament”,
Harl e al, La Bible grecque des Sepiante, 282-88.

% See J. Daniélou, Etudes d’exégése judéo-chrétienne, and P. Prigent, Les lestimonia dans
le christianisme primitif. In Prigent’s opinion, the following facts work in favour of the
testimonia: the recurrence of the same composite quotations; the recurrence of incor-
rect attributions in different contexts; the recurrence of the same textual variants;
the recurrence of the same biblical sequences in authors presumed to be indepen-
dent from each other; and lastly, cases where the author appeals to a set of quo-
tations for a purpose which is not the same as the one which dictated the grouping
of texts.

270 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

from the Bible but from other authors in which they circulated,
already taken out of context. Probably the hypothesis of an U*lorilegium
or book of testimonia on which all these quotations depend has to be
abandoned in favour of a more fluctuating image, which incorpo-
rates the ebb and flow affecting these collections: from the original
texts to the extracts edited separately, to be included once again in
continuous commentaries by other authors.*

J. P. Audet, instead, is opposed to the concept of éestimonia as a
specific literary form. In any case they were reading notes or extracts
from Scripture that circulated to assist memory and recitation but
were never works intended for publication. To try to discover in
them a purpose, an intention or even a particular theology, is futile
and beyond our capabilities in the present state of documentation.
Melito of Sardis (c. 170 ce) and Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 cE) are
the first two witnesses of biblical extracts intended for publication.
‘These extracts had their proper place in the liturgy and were used
as an introduction or guide in the reading of Scripture.”

If we have spent some time on the hypothesis of the éestimonia, it
is in order to illustrate an aspect of the serious problems posed by
biblical quotations in the Fathers, especially when studied for tex-
tual reasons rather than only from the aspect of history of exegesis.
It is further proof that before using them for the critical restoration
of the LXX, the literary form in which they occur has to be deter-
mined as. well as the context of lemma or commentary and other
details that are indispensable for correctly evaluating the text of the
quotation in question.

However, we would also like to insist that these quotations, duly
restored, comprise an indispensable tool for determining the recen-
sions of the Greek Bible. Without going into the enormous biblio-
graphy for the quotations of cach Father here,*® or into the new
critical editions that have been published in the principal collec-
tions,” we shall restrict ourselves in what follows to listing the main
conditions imposed by scholarly use of this quotation material before
including it in textual criticism of the LXX.

“L’Hypothése des “Testimonia’ 4 !épreuve des Stromates, Remarques
sur les citations de Ancien Testament chez Clément d’Alexandrie”, La Bible et les
Pires, ed. A. Benoit and P. Prigent, Strasbourg 1971, 229-42.

P. Audet, “L’hypothése des “Testimonia’”, 402ff.

38 See CB 59-65 and the Biblia Patristica collection. See, also, Select Bibliography.

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 271

Tt is necessary to establish the chronology of these quotations, their
places of origin and finally to establish their text in reliable critical
editions. Later, the literary genre in which the quotation occurs has
to be determined, since those transmitted in a collection of éestimo-
mia (with the additional literary problem of outlining the sources from
which they have been taken) do not have the same value as those
in an exegetical commentary or a homily.

Besides these requirements, it will have to be established whether
the quotation occurs in a lemma or a commentary or in both at
the same time; whether it is a quotation from memory, a conflation
of parallel passages or an allusion that belongs to the biblical lan-
guage of the author in question. Above all, it has to be seen whether
the same author quotes the same passage in different ways; such
quotations have special value, as Rahlfs and Ziegler have shown.
The resulting refined text is valid for the comparison of different
groups of manuscripts that transmit the recensions and possibly local
revisions of the text of the LXX.**

Serect BrstrocrarHy

Arnaldez, R., “La Bible de Philon d’Alexandric”. Le monde grec et la Bible, ed.
C. Mondesert, BY'T 1, Paris 1984, 37-54.

——, R., “L’influence de la traduction des Septante sur le commentaire de
Philon”. Etudes sur le Judaisme hellénistigue, ed. R. Kuntzmann and J. Schlosser,
Paris 1984, 255-66.

Audet, J. P., “L*hypothése des “T'estimonia’. Remarque(s) autour d’un libre récent”.
RB 70 (1963), 381~405.

Begg, C., Josephus’ Account of the arly Divided Monarchy (AJ 8, 212420): Rewriting the
Bible, Leuven 1993.

* "The best known, such as Sources Chrétiennnes, Die griechischen chrisllichen Schrifsteller
der ersten Jakrhunderte or the Corpus Christianorum, Seres Graeca, or other critical edi-
tions which have appeared in otter series, see M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graccorusm,
vols 1-5, Brepols“Turnhout 1974-87; Supplementum by M. Geerard and J. Noret,
Brepols-Turnhout 1998. See also Das Korpus der griechischen christlichen Schrifisteller.
Historie, Gegenwart, Zukunf, ed. J. Irmscher and K. Treu, Berlin 1977.

3 A. Rahlfs, Sepiuaginta Studien 1, Gottingen 1904, 16-87, and J. Ziegler, “Jeremias-
“ttate in Vater-Schriften”.

5° Tt is the path that we have followed in our editions of Quaestiones in Octateuchum,
and Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena, by Theodoret of Cyrus, before using his bib-
lical quotations for the edition of the Antiochene text of the Greek Bible in the
historical books, see N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Sdenz-Badillos, Theodoreti Cyrensts
Quaestiones in Octateuchum, Madrid 1979, XXXIX~LXIL, and N. Fernandez Marcos
and J.-R. Busto Saiz, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena, Madrid
1984, LI-LX.

272 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Benoit, A.. and P. Prigent, “Les citations de VEcriture chez les Péres”. RHPAR 2
(1966), 161-68.

Boehl, E., “Alte Christliche Inschriften nach dem Text der LXX”. TSK 1881,
692-713.

Boismard, M. Critique textuelle et citations patristiques”. RB 57 (1953), 172-78.

Collart, P., “Psaumes et amulettes”. Aegyptus 14 (1934), 463-67.
~~, “Un papyrus Reinach inédit. Psaume 140 sur une amulette”. Aegypluus 13
(1933), 208-12.

Daniélon, J., Etudes d’exégése judéo-chrétienne (Les ‘Testimonia’), Paris 1966.

Feissel, D., “La Bible dans les inscriptions grecques”. Le monde grec ancien et la Bible,
ed. C. Mondesert, BT’ 1, Paris 1984, 223-31.

Fernandez Marcos, N., “La Biblia de los autores del Nuevo Testamento”. £1 Simposio
Biblico Espanol, ed. V. Collado-Bertomeu and V. Vilar-Hueso, Valencia~Cérdoba
1987, 171-80.

Fichtner, J., “Der AT-Text der Sapientia Salomonis”. Z4W 57 (1939), 155-92.

Hagner, D, A., The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, Leiden 1973.

Janhart, R., “Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta in neutestamentlicher Zeit”. 27K 81

(1984), 395-416.
Harl, M., “La Septante aux abords de 1’ére chrétienne. Sa place dans le Nouveau
Testament”. Harl ¢ af, La Bible grecque des Septante, 1988, 269-88.
Harrinton, D. J., “The Biblical ‘lext of Pseudo-Philo’s ‘Liber Antiquitatum Bibli-
carum’”. CBQ 33 (1971), I-11.
Hatch, E., Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford 1989, 131-202 and 203~14.
alabert, L., and H. LECLERCQ,, “Citations bibliques dans P’épigraphic grecque”.
DACL MI, 2 (1914), 1731-79.

erphanion, G, de, “Une variante isolée d’un manuscrit confirmée par l’épigraphie”.
Bib 3 (1922), 444-45.

ouassard, G., “Requéte d’un patrologue aux biblistes touchant les Septante”. Studia
Patristica 1 (1957) = TU 63, 307-27.

Katz, P., Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in some Philonic Writings and
tis Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible, Cambridge 1950.

Kraft, R. A., “The Epistle of Barnabas, its Quotations and their Sources”. Diss.,
University of Harvard 1961.

Miller, M., “The Septuagint as the Bible of the New Testament Church: Some
Reflections”. SfOT 7 (1993), 194-207.

Nagel, P., “Die Septuaginta-Zitate in der Koptisch-Gnostischen “Exegese tiber die
Seele’ (Nag Hammadi Codex I)”. Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung 22/23 (1974),
249-69.

Nestle, E., “Alte Christliche Inschriften nach dem Text der LXX”. TSK 1883,
153-54.

Nikiprowetzky, V., Le Commentaire de U'Ecriture chez, Philon d’Alexandrie, Leiden 1977.

Nodet, E., Le Pentateuque de Flavius Joséphe, Paris 1996.

Peterson, E., “Das Amulett von Acre”, Aegyptus 33 (1953), 172-78.

Prigent, P., Les testimonia dans le christianisme primitif. L’Epitre de Barnabé I-XVI et ses
sources, Paris 1961.

Schaller, B., “Das Testament Hiobs und die Septuaginta-Ubersetzung des Buches
Hiobs”, Bib 61 (1980), 377-406.

Schwartz, J., “Un fragment grec du livre de Judith (sur ostracon)”. RB 53 (1946),
534-37,

Spottorno, V., “Flavio Josefo. Técnicas de adaptacién del texto biblico (1 Re 3,
16-28)". Sefarad 52 (1992), 227-34.

Steve, M. A. and P. Benoit, “Une cruche avec inscription biblique”. RB 56 (1949),
433-42 (Ps. 35:8-10),

INDIRECT TRANSMISSION: BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 273

Steyn, G. J., Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the
Acta Apostolorum, Kampen 1995.

Stichel, R., “Die Inschriften des Samson-Mosaiks in Mopsuestia und ihre Bezichung

hen Text”. ByZ 71 (1978), 50-61, pl. 9-10 (Jgs 16:14).

‘ Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 369-432.

Thackeray, H. St J., Josephus: the Man and the Historian, New York 1967, 75100.

Ulrich, E. C., “Josephus’ Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel?’ ”. Josephus, the Bible,
and History, 1989, 81~96.

Vermes, G., Josephus? Treatment of the Book of Daniel”, 77S 42 (1991), 149~66.

Wikgren, A., “T'wo Ostraca Fragments of the Septuagint Psalter”. ZVES 5 (1946),
181-84.

Wilcox, M., “On Investigating the Use of the Old Testament in the New ‘Testament’.
Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, ed.
E. Best and R. McL. Wilson, Gambridge 1979, 231-43.

Ziegler, J., “Jeremias-Zitate in Vater-Schriften. Zugleich grundsatzliche Betrachtungen
iiber Schrift-Zitate in Vater-Ausgaben”. Hist. Jahrbuch 77 (1958), 347-57.

For particular studies of Old Testament quotations in the New, see BS, 75-82, and
for the text of the Old Testament in the Pseudepigrapha, see the bibliography by
J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, with a Supplement, Chico,
Calif. 1981. For the biblical quotations and allusions of Nag Hammadi, see Nag
Hammadi Texis and the Bible, ed. C. A. Evans, R. L. Webb and R. A. Wiebe, Leiden
1993. For quotations in the Fathers, J. Allenbach, A. Benoit, D. A. Bertrand, A.
Hanriot-Couster, P, Maraval, A. Pautler, P. Prigent, (M. Scopello, F. Vinel, Th.
Ziegler), Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patris-
tigue, 6 vols, with a supplement on Philo of Alexandria, Paris 1975-95, is indis-
pensable.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

APORIAI AND BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES

Of the many literary forms of early Christian literature, we shall
select two for their particular repercussions for the history of the
Greek Bible: erotapokriseis literature and biblical commentaries.' It is
useful to first note that the only Bible used for commentaries, ques-
tions, homilies and theological treatises for the Greek Fathers is the
LXX, which means that in their works these authors attempt to
resolve all the Aporiai of the biblical text and difficult passages (many
of them due to the Greek of the translation), within the Greek lan-
guage system.”

Before analysing these two genres with a view to using them for
textual criticism of the LXX, we have to insist yet again on the lack
of critical editions and on the false attributions that require clarification
with the help of patristic literature,’ especially if we compare the
present neglect of Christian Greck literature with the attention that
has been paid to classical Greck literature.

In what follows we shall trace out the path followed by these two
literary forms, focusing particularly on their impact on the trans-
mission and restoration of the Greek Bible.

' See H. Jordan, Geschichte der altchrisilichen Literatur, 377 and 409-12.

2 See M. Hari, “Origéne ct la s¢mantique du langage biblique”, VC 26 (1972),
61-88; Harl, “Origéne et les interprétations patristiques grecques de |’*obscurité’
biblique”, VC 36 (1982), 334-71; N. Fernandez Marcos, “En torno al estudio del
griego de los cristianos”, Emerita 41 (1973), 45-56; M. Harl, “Y-~a-t-il une influence
du ‘grec biblique’ sur la langue spirituelle des chrétiens?. Exemples tirés du psaume
118 et de ses commentateurs d’Origéne 4 Théodoret”, La Bible et les péres, Strasbourg,
971, 243-62; A. Hilhorst, Sémitismes et latinismes dans le “Pasteur” d’Hermas, Nijmegen
1976.

Very few writers on the Fathers tackle the problem of biblical Greek from a lin-
guistic standpoint as translation Greck, see G. J. M. Bartelink, “Observations de
Saint Basile sur la langue biblique et théologique”, VC 17 (1963), 85-105. Undoubtedly
the most interesting treatise on biblical hermeneutics in antiquity is Hadrian’s Kisagoge,
from the first half of the 5th century, see O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen
Literatur IV, 254-55, and for the text PG 98, 1273-312, and F. Goessling, Adrians
‘Eisagoge eis tas theias graphas’, Berlin 1987. For philological studies by the Fathers on
the Bible, G. Dorival, “Antiquité chréuenne et Bible”, Dictionnawe Encyelopédique de
la Bible, Turnhout 1987, can be consulted, especially 70-76.

3 See J. B. Bauer, “Patrologie”, and Ww. Spey r, “Falschung”.

APORIAI AND BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 27
a} Aporiai

The genre of Aporiai or erotapokriseis consists in the treatment of a
topic by means of a series of questions and answers. Although the
word is not ancient (it is used for the first time by Byzantine gram-
marians of the 13th century) the question-and-answer pattern for
developing a topic goes back a long way in literature. Its beginnings
are to be traced back to the beginnings of critical study on the
Homeric poems. The first objections to be raised were concerned
with morals. Later, the attacks focused on grammar and style and
on the inconsistencies within the poems in respect of content. However,
it was in the Hellenistic period that the genre Cnthpota Kai Avoets
culminated. The genre was particularly suited to biblical exegesis
since, like the Homcric poems, many passages in the Old Testament
posed problems of inconsistency, contradictions and passages offensive
to morals. The genre was used particularly in writings of scientific
content and in the literature of revelation. It is thus connected with
the introductions (Ezsagogai) to the sciences and apophantic literature
in which a novice beginner comes before a deity or priest asking
questions.° In antiquity they are usually treated unsystematically, in
the form of explanations of difficult passages; the Gythyota Kai Adbceic
of Philo of Alexandria comprise an exception as is evident from the
Latin and Armenian fragments we possess. For each verse of the
Pentateuch he formulates a question in order to answer it in a com-
plete commentary.’

With the arrival of Christianity, this literary form took on a new
dimension. For although Philo’s attitude towards scripture is com-
parable to the attitude of Christian exegetes, his quaestiones are more
a commentary, and in the fragments that have come down to us

* See A. Gudeman, Atoetc. PW 1.13.2 (1927), 2511-29, and O. Dreyer, “Lyseis”, KP
3.16-17 (1968/9), 832-33. See also C. Schaublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft,
49-51, 55-65, and A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible, 82-96.

5 Especially the Hermetic and Gnostic literature, see H. Dorrie and H. Dérries,
“Erotapokriseis. A.-Nichtchristlich”. In my opinion, an antecedent of this literary
form is also to be found in passages in apocalyptic literature where the angel inter-
preter or mediator answers the initiate’s questions on mysteries not explained to
most mortals, such as where the supplies for the weather are kept or other secrets
of the next world.

® See translation by R. Marcus, Philo Supplement. I: Questions and Answers on Genesis;
LE Questens and Answers on Exodus, London—Cambridge, Mass. 1953; F. Petit, Quaestiones
in Genesim et Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca, and J. Paramelle, Philon d’Alexandrie.

276 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

the basic Aporiat of Christian exegesis are missing. In Christian writ-
ers the ancient Cythyota have new contents. Apparently the first
questions correspond to inquiries about the infancy narratives and
the resurrection: for example, the Dept tv év EvayyeAtorg Gntmudctov
kai Aboewv by Eusebius of Caesarea, of which we only have frag-
ments.’ Of the six books on Lépyucto Cytpate by a successor Acacius
of Caesarea, only fragments concerning | Corinthians 15 have been pre-
served. The questions on the Old Testament by Eusebius of Emessa
that G. Bardy thought were lost, are probably extant in his Armenian
Commentary on the Octateuch published by Hovhannessian.*

In the West, among the Latin Fathers, we have two recensions of
the work Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti attributed to the author
known as Ambrosiaster? and composed in Rome between 370 and
375; the Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim by Jerome, the De diversis quaes-
tionibus ad Simplicianum or Quaestiones in Hepiateuchum by Augustine, and
other treatises.'° In Christian literature, cisagogic questions were stud-
ied intensively, as shown by the Apophthegmata Patrum and the Gerontica.
In these collections the questions are very simple and refer to sal-
vation (n@¢ ow8) and the answers are very short, a biblical logion
easily applied to life."!

7 See PG 22, 879ff.; H. Dérrie and H. Dérries, “Erotapokriseis. B. Christlich”;
A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible, 85, and Chr. Schaublin,
Untersuchungen, 49-55. ;

® G. Bardy, “La littérature patristique”, 342. V. Hovhannessian, Eusébe d’ Emése 1.
Commentaire de UOctateuque, Venice 1980, and R. B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in
Greek Dress: The Use of Greek Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s
Commentary on Genesis, Leuven 1997,

® See G. Bardy, “La littérature patristique”, RB 41, 343-56.

"© See G. Bardy, “La littérature patristique”, RB 41, 356-69, 515-37; H. Dérrie
and H. Dérries, “Erotapokriseis”, and A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the
Hebrew Bible, 86-96. In his Quaestiones in Genesim (a total 220) Jerome includes Jewish
legends on the theme and in this way has transmitted ancient stories of Jewish ori-
gin, see M. Rahmer, Die hebréiischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, Breslau
1861, and D. Brown, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Ferome,
Kampen 1992, 55-87 and 167-93. The questions proposed by Jerome are the clas-
sic difliculties of certain passages; neither he nor his fictitious questioners invented
them. He explains the Aporiai with a wide circle of readers in mind, not just par-
ticular individuals, And he is dependent on the Greek Fathers who had already
provided solutions to the problems before him. It is strange that out of Jerome’s
220 question on Genesis and Augustine’s 170 on the same book (Quaestiones in
Fleptateuchum), no more than 30 are common to both.

"' See D. Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness
in Early Christian Monasticism, New York~Oxford 1993.

APORIAT AND BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 277

However, the most successful in the 4th and 5th centuries were
the questions and answers concerning Scripture or difficult passages
in it. There are two types:

1. Purely artificial questions that are no more than a pretext for
a commentary. They are usually asked by the exegete in order
to have an opportunity to resolve them (Philo, Augustine and
Theodoret). If they follow the order of the biblical books we have
a more or less continuous commentary.

2. Real difficulties that have been posed at a particular time to a
famous interpreter, a wise bishop or a friend. This is the case for
Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome and some questions by Augustine.

However, there is great fluctuation between one genre and another.
Several times the supposed questioner is imaginary and the exegete
can pose real problems that interest or concern him.

When this genre first came into being, it was more interesting and
personal than at its end. Little by little, the classic questions were
crystallised and the collections tend to become anonymous or pseude-
pigraphical; they are open to new problems and it is difficult to iden-
tify the original author of successive questioners.

After the 5th~6th centuries there began the period of the florilegia
and the catenae.'* The collections of questions come very close to this
other type of compilation and it is barely possible to identify them
by more than their outward form. For although the calena is limited
to juxtaposing several witnesses relating to the same biblical passage,
there are catenae arranged around a nucleus formed by the quaestiones
of Theodoret of Cyr.'’ This work by Theodoret became the most
important of its kind among the Greck Fathers. Its title, quest, search
(Gnthuata) into difficult passages of Sacred Scripture distinguishes
two types of inquirer who ask questions about the Bible: the evil-
minded who are trying to contradict the sacred text (oi wév Sva0eBic
épwtHo1), and the ones who pose questions in order to learn (oi 5é
ropo8Gs Cntodor). The edition by Schulze, printed by Migne (PG
80), includes sections from Origen, Diodorus, Didymus, Theodore

® See H. Chadwick, “Florilegium”, RAC 7 (1969), 1131-59, and M. Richard,
Opera Minora [, Turnhout~Leuven 1976, articles 1-4 and 6. On the caienae, see chap-
ter 19.

'S See chapter 19.

278 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

and other Fathers, fragments which both for content and scant rep-
resentation in the manuscript tradition have to be excluded from a
critical edition of the work.'*

The questions are set by the author. However, sometimes allusion
is made to other people and to older traditions. Only occasionally
does Theodoret argue with Josephus, Marcion, Arius, Eunomius and
Apollinaris. He attacks the heretics in their criticisms of the Old
Testament’? more than the pagans. The distribution of the questions
in the books of the Octateuch and Kings can give us an idea of the
problems that were of most interest to exegesis then. There are 111
questions on Genesis, 72 on Exodus, 38 on Leviticus, 51 on Numbers,
46 on Deuteronomy, 20 on Joshua, 28 on Judges and 2 on Ruth.
This uneven distribution, which is found also in Augustine, gives the
impression that the author is becoming increasingly tired as he goes
through the biblical books. There follow 65 questions on | Samuel,
45 on 2 Samuel, 68 on 1 Kings and 57 on 2 Kings. Strangely, in the
books of Chronicles the questions are replaced by a commentary.'®

In line with the principles of the Antioch school, there is more
literal and typological interpretation than allegorical. These Aporiat
are by no means bookish or mere formalities, and there is much
experience and use of information in the explanations. Question 33
on Exodus — which explains that, when fighting the Amalekites, the
Hebrews used the weapons of the Egyptians whose corpses had been
deposited by the waters on the shore of the Red Sea — occurs both
here and in Hellenistic Jewish historians.'’ Although one of the sources

“See N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Saenz-Badillos, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones
in Octateuchum. Editio critica, Madrid 1979, XI-XXIX. See the Prologue to the quaes-
fiones on p. 3 of that edition, lines 14-17. The need for this edition was expressed
by G. Bardy, “La littérature patristique”, 42 (1933), 225, as follows: “Un autre
probléme, connexe au précédent, est celui du texte des Quaestiones. L’ouvrage a été
édité @aprés un manuscrit du XII* siécle, le Paris, 842; et on peut lire, dans le
texte imprimé quelques fragments de Diodore, de Théodore de Mopsueste et
d’Origéne ... Dans ces conditions on comprend, avec quelle urgence s’imposerait
un examen séricux de la tradition manuscrite.”

% See J.-N. Guinot, L’exégse de Théodoret de Cyr, 465-563,

‘© He only has one question on 1 Chron. 15:27 and after replying briefly with
the interpretations of Aquila and Symmachus he continues with a sort of sum-
mary~commentary. The same thing happens with 2 Chronicles: he only has one
question on 2 Chron. 10:15 and continues in the manner of a commentary, see
N, Fernandez Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et
Paralipomena. Editio Critica, Madrid 1984, 252 and 264.

Used by Demetrius in order to exculpate the Hebrews to show that they were
not armed when they fled from Egypt, see C. R. Holladay, Fragments fiom Hellenistic

APORIA! AND BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 279

used by Theodoret is indicated as Philo of Alexandria,"® it seems
that he was more influenced by Flavius Josephus, at least for ques-
tions on the Octateuch, Kings and Paralipomena, where he is often
cited."” However, his main source, apparently, is Diodorus of Tarsus,
to the extent that when editing his work he possibly had in front of
him the Quaestiones in Octateuchum by that author, which we know
only from fragments.” It would be extremely interesting for the his-
tory of exegesis to do research on Jewish haggadic material.”

The literature of guaestiones et responsiones is continued in the Replies
to the orthodox, attributed to Justin, but actually dating to the time of
Theodoret; in the Aporiai of the gospel symphony by Hesychius of Jerusalem,
which is not of high quality and sometimes degenerates into mere
curiosities; the Quaestiones ad Antiochum by Pseudo-Athanasius, dog-
matic questions on dogma, exegesis and popular piety; the Quaestiones
ad Thalassium by Maximus the Confessor, in which he replies to 65
questions on biblical Aporiat or passages that seem to be contradic-
tory. And lastly, the Quaestiones et responsiones by Anthony of Sinai, in
which biblical topics only occupy the nucleus from 21 to 81 and the
appendix, from 142 to 1532.”

Tt is not easy to mark out the line dividing Erotapokriseis from
related genres. The literature of the Aporiai stands out because the
author himself asks the question and sometimes answers at great
length. The dialogue, instead, is not satisfied with one answer but
returns repeatedly to the same idea. The shift from Erolapokriseis to
the fexicon of biblical concepts and words cannot have been difficult.

Jewish Authors. Volume I: Historians, Chico, Ga. 1983, 76-77. See also Josephus’
Antiquities, UW, 349.

See P. Wendland, New entdeckte Fragmente Philos, Berlin 1891, 106-108.

'S See N. Fernandez Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, Quaestiones in Reges et Parlipomena,
314-15.

#1 An indication of how rich these works are can be found in the article by
L. Ginzberg, “Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern und in der apokryphischen
Literatur” MGW 42 (1898), 537-50; 43 (1899), 17-22, 117-25, 149-59, 217-31,
293-303, 409-16, 461-70, 485-504, 529-47. Guinot in his important work on
Theodoret’s exegesis (L’exégése de Théodoret de Cyr, 484-521) focuses rather on polemics
than on the haggadic material.

* H. Dérrie and H. Dorries, “Erotapokriseis. B. Christlich”, can be consulted
for the path followed by this literary genre from apothegms up to its shift to florilegia
and catenae, For Anastasius Sinaita, see M. Richard, “Les veritables ‘Questions et
réponses’”. For Maximus Confessor, see Maximus Confessor- quaestiones ad Thalassium,
I (QU. I-LY), una cum latina interpretatione [oannis Scotti Eriugenae, edited by
G. Laga and C. Steel, Turnhout 1980; If (QU. LVI-LXV) 1990.

280 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

All that was necessary was to put the questions into alphabetical
order, as was done by Eucherius of Lyons in his two books of
Instructiones ad Salonium.* In the final stage, the Aporiai become florilegia
and catenae, where the interest lies neither in the questions nor in
the name of compiler but in the witnesses of the great commenta-
tors of scripture in the golden age of the Fathers, set out like a
chain.**

b) Commentaries

Although the history of Christian exegesis has yet to be written, some
recent monographs open up a horizon of unsuspected possibilities.
To retrace the ancestors of a particular book or biblical passage in
the successive explanations by the Fathers is an adventure that not
only provides us with unexpected new items but can even help in
understanding the biblical text in question.”

Christian exegesis is as old as the gospels. Paul, the Letter to the
Hebrews and James include midrashic techniques with continual ref
erences to the Old Testament. To trace the history of Christian exe-
gesis we shall have to go as far back as Philo, even, for the enormous
influence his exegesis of the Pentateuch has on Christian commen-
tators, and even to the literature from Qumran because it largely
inherits the problems and attitudes of Jewish exegesis.”

Among the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists, the work most like
a commentary is the Letter of Barnabas (Ist half of the 2nd cen-
tury ce) in which an attempt is made to prove that the Church is
the true heir of the synagogue. Justin’s Dialogue with Tryphon is
one of the oldest and most complete forms of Christian exegesis.
However, according to Eusebius, Irenaeus and Clement, it is possi-

23 Sancti Eucherti Lugdunensis, Opera Omma, recensuit et comentario critico instruxit
C. Wotke, CSEL 31, Vienna 1894.

* In spite of the theme of the erotapokriseis it retains its heuristic and pedagogi-
cal value and appears again in the famous guaestiones dispuiaiae of the scholastics,
although there is no direct connection with them.

8 See Y-M. Duval, Le liore de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine. Sources
et influence du Commentaire sur Jonas de saint Jéréme, 1 and Il, Paris 1973.

*© For biblical commentaries in Qumran, see G. Aranda Pérez, F. Garcia Martinez
and M, Pérez Fernandez, Literatura judia inierlestamentaria, Estella (Navarre) 1996,
92-119, and J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study,
Atlanta, Ga. 1990, 160-61.

APORIAT AND BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 281
ble that commentaries in the strict sense appeared around 150 cE.”
The oldest commentary known is the Antithesis by Marcion, men-
tioned by Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem; it is an explanation of
Luke’s gospel by Marcion on the basis of contrasts with and oppo-
sitions to the Jewish books.”* The author of the first known com-
mentary on the gospel of John in the 2nd century is a heretic,
Herakleon, a disciple of Valentine. We know about him through
Origen who tries to refute him in his Commentarium in Joannem. These
facts may be due to chance or could indicate a greater scientific
curiosity by the Gnostics, since we can count on a parallel in the
origins of Christian poetry: our first information about it is through
the Gnostic and Arian hymns.”

From the 3rd to the 4th centuries a wealth of commentaries, scho-
fa and homilies on the holy books emerges; the literature is badly
known because, generally, the summaries, florilegia and catenae have
been more widespread, and after the 6th century they dominate the
exegetical horizon.”

Although, in the prologues to his Commentaries, Jerome often
speaks of commentators earlier than him such as Appolinaris, Origen
and Didymus,*' it is surprising how few fragments of them we have,
especially when it is now accepted that a large part of Jerome’s com-
mentaries was composed on the basis of selections from Origen.

However, the most typical commentaries are connected with two
great Christian centres in ancient times: Rome and Alexandria.
Hippolytus and Origen are the two most productive writers of the
3rd century. Of the first we only have fragments in the works of
other authors, especially in the Evanistes by Theodoret of Cyr. Many
of these exegetical works from the beginning only commented on

“7 W. Bousset, Jidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieh in Alexandria und Rom, Gottingen 1915
= Hildesheim~New York 1975, 263-71.

** Fragments are preserved in the writings of Tertullian, Origen and Epiphanius.
See A. von Harnack, Marcion, das evangelium des fremden Goltes. TU 45, Leipzig 1924.

* See W. Christ and M. Paranikas, Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum, Leipzig
1871; W. Meyer, Anfang und Ursprung der lateinischen und griechischen rythmischen Dichtung,
Munich 1885; H. Follieri, dnitia Hymnorum Ecclesiae Graecae I-V, S'T 211-15bis, Vatican
City 1960-66; K. Thraede, Untersuchungen zum Ursprung und zur Geschichte der chrisitichen
Poesie I, JAC 1961, 108-27, and A. von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur
bis Eusebius 1/1, Leipzig 1893 (reprint of the 2nd edn 1958), 795-97.

% See chapter 19 and A. G. Hamman, Jacques-Paul Migne, 2235.

3! For example, in the prologue to his commentary on Hosea, PL 25, 819-20.

® See the recent edition of the Evanistes. G. H. Ettlinger, Theodoret of Gyrus Eranistes:
Critical Text and Prolegomenon, Oxford 1975.

282 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

short passages such as the Hexameron, paradise and the fall, the bless-
ings of Isaac, Jacob, Balaam, Moses. The only commentaries by
Hippolytus that survive today, and perhaps the only ones to exist as
such in antiquity, are the commentaries on Song of Songs and Daniel.
The one on Song of Songs is the first Christian example of alle-
gorical interpretation; the commentary on Daniel, written under the
persecution of 202, was intended to calm the faithful of Rome, noti-
fying them that the end of the world was not near.**

However, the real creator of scientific exegesis in the Christian
world is Origen. Through book IV of De Principiis, a true treatise
on hermeneutics, and from the Philocalia, we can know his excgeti-
cal ideas, the principles of allegorical interpretation and the three
meanings of Scripture. He is also the first author who feels the need
to base his exegesis on a flawless biblical text for which he did not
spare any means in the composition of the Hexapla.* In Jerome’s
prologues it is evident that Origen returned three times and in three
different ways to the same biblical book: in the form of scholia or
short notes on difficult passage, as homilies to the public and in com-
plete commentaries on the biblical books. He has commentaries on
Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel
and the Twelve Prophets.** Much by Origen is also to be found in
the Hexameron by Ambrose, in the commentary on the Psalms by
Hilary, and in Jerome. The importance of these last works is that
they can’ be very useful for checking fragments attributed to Origen
in the catenae.*°

At the end of the 4th century there emerged a series of com-
mentators from the school of Antioch openly opposed to the exegetes

% M. Richard, “Les difficultés d’une édition”, and J. Ziegler, “Der Bibeltext im
Daniel-Kommentar des Hipollyt von Rom”, Nao chr. d. Akademie d. Wiss. zu Gottingen.
Philolog.-Hist. Klasse, 1952, 163-99.

# For the exegetical work and hermeneutics of Origen, see B. Allaner and
A. Stuiber, Patrologie, Fribourg 1980, 200-205; P. Nautin, Origéne, sa vie ef son oeuvre,
Paris 1977, 261-362, M. Harl, rene. Philocalie, 1-20, Sur les Ecritures. SC 302, Paris
1983, 42-157, and B. Neuschafer, Origenes als Philologe I-Il, Basle 1987, I, 139-246.

%® G. Bardy, “Commentaires patristiques de la Bible”, , 91- 94. The commentary
on Genesis comprised thirteen books according to Jerome (ep. 33,4), but twelve
according to Eusebius (Hist. Ec. V1, 24,2). For the fragments preserved, see PG 12,
46-146. Although Jerome used this work in his Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim, appar-
ently he was critical of it, and sometimes had reservations about Origen’s inter-
pretation, see A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bible, 98-103.

% OR, Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de ( Octateuque, 26-52, and Devreesse,
Les anciens commentateurs grecs des psaumes, \-88.

APORIAL AND BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 283

of Alexandria: they condemn the allegorical exegesis of Origen and
his Alexandrian successors unreservedly and opt for literal and typo-
logical exegesis.” Behind both schools lic two different philosophical
presuppositions which hinder mutual understanding: the Aristotelian
philosophy of the Antiochenes and the neo-Platonism of the Alex-
andrians. However, recently the trend is to analyse the different inter-
pretational methods of the two schools, insisting more on the different
approaches that they contribute to the history of exegesis than on
the supposed conflict of relations between Antioch and Alexandria
or the radical opposition between typology and allegory.

The difficulty in studying the school of Antioch is that we only
have fragments. The work by Diodorus of Tarsus, tig Suapop& Bewpiag
koi &AANyopias, mentioned by Suidas, which would have been fun-
damental in understanding the differences between the two schools,
has been lost. Diodorus is the teacher of the group, but only frag-
ments of his works survive, taken from the calenae and the com-
mentary on the Psalms.

The theory of the exegetical school of Antioch is put together in
Hadrian’s Eioaywyh, a work which, to judge from the fragments of
the catenae, was much longer than is preserved in known manuscripts
and printed editions.”

7 See Chr. Schaublin, Untersuchungen, G. W. Ashby, Theodoret of Cyrrhus as Exegete
of the Old Testament, Grahamstown 1972, 17-25; J.-N. Guinot, L’exégése de Théodoret
de Gyr, 71-76, and Guinot, “La typologie comme technique herméneutique”, Figures
de l’Ancien Testament chez les Péres, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 2, Strasbourg 1989,
1v34.

38 See J. Deconinck, Essai sur la chaine de U’Octateuque avec une édition des Commentaires
de Diodore de Tarse, Paris 1912, 84-169, where he published the fragments of Diodorus,
dividing them into authentic, doubtful and false. It should be noted that Fragment
75 of Numbers (pp. 152-54) is not by Diodorus but by Theodoret, as we have
shown from examining the manuscript tradition of the Quaestiones in Octateuchum by
Theodoret of Cyr. See also R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Oclateu-
que, 157-67; R. Abramowski, “Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Tarsus”, ZNW 30
(1931), 234-62, and E. Schweizer, “Diodor von Tarsus als Exeget”, ZNW 40 (1941),
33-75. And for his commentary on the psalms, Diodorus Tarsensis-commentarii in psalmos,
T (Ps. I-L), ed., J.-M. Olivier, I vol., Turnhout 1980.

*® See G. Mercati, “Pro Adriano”, RB 11 (1914), 246-55. The most recent edi-
tion is by F. Goessling, Adrians Eisaywyi cic ta Betas ypopdc, Leipzig 1887. On
pp. 43-50 of the introduction Goessling analyses how Adrian agrees with the
hermeneutics of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Chrysostom and with the
Lucianic recension. See also A. Vaccari, “La tora nella scuola esegetica di Antiochia”,
Bib \ (1920), 3-36, and Vaccari, “La theoria esegelica antiochena”, Bib 15 (1934),
94-101.

284 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

The two main representatives of the Antioch school are un-
doubtedly Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Gyr. A list of
Theodore’s exegetical works is in Leontius of Byzantium.”” The
Commentaries on Psalms and on the Twelve Prophets come from
the first exegetical period, before his bishopric; the commentaries on
the gospels, epistles and possibly also the Commentary on Job and
Ecclesiastes, the latter dedicated to Porphyrius, belong to the second
period, probably after 400. He is the only Father of the Church to
write a literal exegesis of the Song of Songs, he denies the charisma
of inspiration to the author of Job, and his commentary on the
Psalms was heavily criticised because it applied to the events of the
people of Israel what, according to the Fathers, had to be understood
of the Messiah. As a result, he argued for the exclusion of the book
of Job and Song of Songs from the canon of inspired books and re-
jected the messianic interpretation of most of the Psalms.*! The reduc-
tion of the number and extent of the messianic prophccies explains
to a large extent why his commentaries disappeared” We now have
a recent critical edition of his commentary on the Twelve Prophets.
And in general it is possible to state that some recent finds of parts
of his works and other specialised monographs are helping to restore
he image of this Antiochene Father, one of the greatest intellects in
the Greek Church, who would have enjoyed much greater success
in antiquity if his works had not been so popular among Nestorius’
followers." Theodoret of Cyr, a disciple of Theodore, has a contin-
uous commentary on the Psalter* as well as commentaries on Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the Twelve Prophets.*

And to close: there is a need to pay attention to the Commentaries
by Eusebius of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Apollinaris of Laodicea

See L. Pirot, L’oeuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste, Rome 1913, 122-23.

* Some of them condemned, see Mansi IX, 249.

“ HLN. Sprenger, Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in XL prophetas, Einleitung und
Ausgabe, Wiesbaden 1977, which replaces the one by Mai and von Wegnern printed
in Migne, PG 66, 123-632.

* R. Bultmann’s unpublished doctoral dissertation was on the exegesis of Theodore
of Mopsuestia. See L. Pirot, L’oeuore exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste, especially the
introduction, chap. VI and pp. 323-25, and R. Devreesse, Essaz sur Théodore de
Mopsueste, Vatican City 1948.

*® PG 80, 857-1998.

® PG 81, 215-1988.

APORIAL AND BIBLIGAL COMMENTARIES 285

and Cyril of Alexandria for the East; and at least revise those by
Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine for the West. It is absolutely
necessary to work on two fronts: by the production of modern criti-
cal editions that will reduce the great textual anarchy present in the
field, and by monographs that trace the history of exegesis through
the various schools and writers. It is many years since Rahlfs drew
attention to the need for these editions in respect of the Greck Bible.”

SeLecT BrLiocRAPHy

Alfonsi, L., “I generi letterari. Dall’antichita classica alla letteratura cristiana”.
Augustinianum 14 (1974), 451-59.

Altaner, B., “Der Stand der patrologischen Wissenschaft und das Problem einer
neuen altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte”. Miscellanea Gtovannt Mercati L (= ST
121), Vatican City 1946, 483-520.

-——, B., and A. Stuiber, Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenvdter, Vreiburg
1980.

Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altkirchliche Literatur, Freiburg 1 1913, Ho 1914, Til
1923, IV 1924, V 1962.

Bardy G., “Commentaires patristiques de la Bible”. DBS 2 (1934), 73-103.

, “La littérature patristique des ‘Quaestiones et responsiones’ sur I’Ecriture

Sainte”. RB 41 (1932), 210-36; 341-69; 515-37; 42 (1933), 14-30; 211-29;

328-52.

* JT shall only mention commentaries that require editions the most. In the com-
mentarics on the psalms there is absolutely no order with respect to attributions.
On these Rahlfs says that his remarks are completely provisional and precise research
on the manuscripts is pressing, see A. Rahlfs, Verzeechnis der griechischen Handschriflen
des Alten Testaments, Berlin 1914, 402, n. 3. See also M. Richard, “Quelques manus-
crits peu connus des chaines exégétiques et de commentateurs grees sur le Psautier”,
BIRHT 3 (1954), 87-107. Theodoret’s Commentary on the Psalms is well worth
editing for its wealth of Hexaplaric notes among other reasons.

On the commentary by Hesychius of Jerusalem on the Twelve Prophets (PG 93,
1339-86), Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, 432, n, 2 remarks: “Eine genauere Untersuchung ist
erforderlich”. Still unpublished are commentaries in Greck by unknown writers on
the Twelve Prophets, such as the one preserved in ms, Q-III-19 in the Royal Library
of El Escorial and in another manuscript of the National Library of Madrid (Bib.
Nac. 4698). Also required is a new edition of the Commentary on Twelve Prophets
by Cyril of Alexandria, Ziegler apologises because the quotations from Cyril in his
edition of Dodekapropheton are not reliable, see J. Ziegler, “Der Bibeltext des Cyrill
von Alexandrien zu den zwolf kleinen Propheten in den Druck-Ausgaben”, Nachr.
d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Géttingen, Philol.-Hist. Klasse, 1943, 345-412, especially 400-402.

And in the wisdom books, we are still expecting the edition of the Commentary
by Malachias on the books of Wisdom, Ben Sira and Proverbs which is in the 14th
century ms, Q-I-7, in the Royal Library of El Escorial. Besides being one of the
few commentaries on the wisdom books in existence, it has the attraction of pro-
viding a biblical text that is Lucianic, J. R. Busto Saiz, “The Biblical Text of
“Malachias Monachus’ to the Book of Wisdom”, La Sepluaginta, 1985, 257~69.

286 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

Baskin, J. R., “Rabbinic~Patristic Exegetical Gontacts in Late Antiquity: A Biblio-
graphical Reappraisal”. Approaches to Ancient Judaism 5, Atlanta, Ga. 1985, 53-80.

Bauer, J. B., “Patrologie”. Ias ist Theologie?, ed., E. Neuhaussler and E. Géssmann,
Munich 1966, 120-38,

Berardino, A. di (ed.), Diccionario Patristico y de la Antigiiedad Cristiana, Y-I1, Salamanca
1991-92,

Devreesse, R., Le Commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes (I-LXXX), Vatican
City 1939.
~, R., Les anciens commeniateurs grecs de VOctateuque et de Rois (Fragments tirés des

a s), Vatican City 1959 (= sT 201).

, R., Les anciens commentateurs grees des Psaumes, Vatican City 1970 (= ST 264).

Dorrie, H,, and H. Dorries, “Brotapokriseis”. RAC 6 (1966), 342-70.

Ghellinck, a de, “Diffusion, utilisation et transmission des 8 patristiques: guides

bibliothéques et pages choisis”. Gregorianum 14 (1933), 356400.

” exégese de Théodoret de Cyr, Paris 1995,

Hagedorn, D., Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Futian, Berlin-New York 1973.

Hamman, A. G., Jacques-Paul Migne. Le retour aux péres de UEglise, Paris 1975.

Harl, M., Origéne. Philocalie, 1-20, Sur les Ecritures. SO 302, Paris 1983.

Harnack, A. von, Geschichte der altchristhchen Literatur bis Eusebius Il, Leipzig 1958,

Jordan, H., Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig 1911.

Kamessar A., Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the “Quaestiones
Flebraicae in Genesim”, Oxford 1993.

Kerrigan, A., St Cyril of Alexandria Interpreter of the Old Testament, Rome 1952.

Labriolle, P. de, La réaction paienne, Paris 1952, 487-508.

Margerie, B. de, Introduction & Uhistoire de Vexégése: 1. Les péres grecs et ortentaux, Paris
1980.

Musurillo, H., “Some Textual Problems in the Editing of the Greck Fathers”. Studia
Patristica 3, Berlin 1961, 85-97.

Nautin, P., Origine. Sa vie et son oeuvre, Paris 1977.

Nautin, P. and L. Doutreleau, Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur la Genése. Texte inédit d’apres un
papyrus de Toura \-Il, SC. 233- 34, Paris 1976-78.

Paramelle, |J., avec la collaboration de Enzo Lucchesi, Philon d’Alexandrie. Questions
sur la Genése Ll, 1-7. Texte grec, version arménienne, paralléles latins, Geneva 1984.

Petit, F., Quaestiones in Genesim el in Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca, Paris 1978.

Richard, M., “Les difficultés d’une édition du commentaire de 8. Hippolyte sur
Daniel”. RHT 12 (1972), 1-11.

——-~=m, “Les veritables ‘Questions et réponses’ d’Anastase le Sinaite”. BIRHT 15
(1967. -68), 39-57.

“Quelques manuscrits peu connus des chaines exégétiques et des com-
mentateurs grecs sur le Psautier”. BIRHT 3 (1954), 87-107.

Scaublin, C., “Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese”,
Kéln-Bonn 1974.

Speyer, W., “Biichervernichtung”. JAC 13 (1970), 122-53.

, “Falschung”. RAC 7 (1969), 236-77.

Treu, K., “Patristische Fragen. | Patristik und Spatantike. 2. Uberlieferungs- und
Editions- probleme der Patristik”. Svensk Exegetisk *rsbok 34 (1969), 170-200.

Ulrich, E. C., “The Old ‘Testament Text of Eusebius: The Heritage of Origen”.
Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, ed. FH. W. Attridge and G. Hata, Leiden 1992,
543-62.

THE LITERATURE OF THE CATENAE

On the catenae, Swete stated that “Perhaps no comer of the field of
Biblical and patristic research offers so much virgin soil, with so good
a prospect of securing useful if not brilliant results.”! In fact, even
today it continues to be barely explored territory where it is neces-
sary to consult the actual manuscripts and mistrust some printed
material. Every attempt at classification must be considered provi-
sional since as yet the catenary manuscripts have not been stripped
in a systematic way.

To be able to evaluate correctly the text of the catenae in order
to include them in the textual criticism of the Greek Bible, atten-
tion must be paid to the following aspects:

1. the genesis and development of this literary form,
2. the description of the catenary manuscripts from a formal aspect;
3. the textual content of the actual catenae.

The text of the catenae is interesting from two aspects:

1. for the possibility it provides of recovering, by means of these late
compilations, lost texts of the Fathers, new Hexaplaric material
of the most recent translators of the Bible or even ancient read-
ings of the LXX;

2. for the type of biblical text that the mss classed as catenary (group
C) in the critical editions of Gottingen can provide.

a) Formation of the Literary Genre

A catena is a collection of fragments taken from different works (com-
mentaries, homilies, scholia) by ancient writers on texts from Scripture.
Usually these extracts are preceded by the name of the author to
whom they belong and follow the sequence of the biblical books in
the various books. As a result they comprise a sort of tacking together

'H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 363.

288 ‘THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

or sequence of exegetical commentaries by various authors, follow-
ing the catena represented by the successive verses of a particular
biblical book.

The name florilegium is usually reserved for dogmatic or ascetic-
moral, not exegetical collections.

The genre is not specifically Christian but grew from imitation of
the copious literature of scholia to classical authors, the dropvipata,
real treatises that incorporated the author’s text. There are Ist cen-
tury papyri with commentaries on Homer in which the pericopes
are threaded together into a continuous interpretation. As time went
on, the explanations were subdivided into énophpota, Cythpata and
Aeic. Later, they would be content with simple notes on the more
difficult or stranger passages: the oydA1a.

In the Hellenistic period the works of medical doctors and famous
philosophers were also annotated in this way. The same happens
with juridical scholia, the collection of the Digest. The text is centre-
page or in the inside of the page; the margins are kept for scholia?

Originally the chains were called é&nyqtiKa, a term which includes
both the continuous commentaries and homilies and the scholia. Later,
the number was reduced to what was most significant and they were
called ékAoyat or collections of selected texts.

They began to be formed at the beginning of the 6th century
when original production of patristic literature was in decline. In this
period new commentaries on the Old and New Testaments were no
longer written but the commentaries by exegetes and men of the
Church from the past were reworked and made into catenae. Procopius
of Gaza was the first to start this type of compilation. As he notes
in the prologue to the Octateuch, in a first stage he had tried to
collect the ényfjoets of the Fathers, begging them from here and
there.? He cited the selected portions as they were (avtoAgget). Soon
he realised how large his work was becoming; consequently he decided
make it shorter and revise it according to the following guidelines:

1. If several authors had the same text one quotation was enough.

2. If their opinions were different he was content to reproduce them
in a sort of continuous explanation, including all their words in
a single written format.’

? R. Devreesse, “Chaines exégétiques grecques”, 1085-87. The same formal par-
allel is to be noted in the arrangement of a page of rabbinic bibles.

* See the work by Theodoret of Cyr with precisely the title “the beggar” (paviotiic).

* See PG 87, 21-24.

THE LITERATURE OF THE CATENAE 289

This second work is the one we have now; it is the commentary or
epitome of the éxdoyat of Procopius.’

The aim of the catenarists was to present different types of exe-
gesis in abbreviated form. And it is possible that the first attempts
are to be looked for in the interpretations to be found in margins
to the Syro-Hexaplaric version, where throughout the psalms the
exegesis of Hesychius alternates with that by Athanasius, whereas in
Job there are fragments of Chrysostom. However, there are many
possible combinations from

1. the catena of two authors in which two commentaries alternate
whose interpretations are followed from beginning to end;

2. the marginal catena around a commentary by someone famous

(e.g. the Quaestiones in Octateuchum by Theodorct of Cyr or the

commentary by John Chrysostom which comprises the pivot on

which the catena to Job turns);

the catena by three authors;

4. a primitive catena, composed of sections chosen from different
exegetes, that is later summarised and expanded with new com-
mentaries from other authors.

One of the collections that has heen studied most is the catena to
the Psalms.

G. Dorival divides the history of these catenae into two phases. The
first is centred in Palestine and represents the origins and first stage
of the catenae; the second took place in Constantinople and its cen-
tres of influence, and is marked by the large number of collections
and the appearance of new forms of catenae. In the Palestinian phase,
three forms can be distinguished:

1. the form of Procopius, where the extracts are taken from com-
mentarics or homilies by Palestinian writers and the page layout
is set out as either one or two columns of text;

2. the scholia-catenae, marked by short discontinuous explanations.
These scholia are set out in a column parallel to the correspond-
ing biblical text;

3. the mixed model, a combination of the other two.

5 See E. Lindl, Die Octateuchcatene des Procop von Gaza, \7ff. Other titles to be found
in catenary manuscripts include ovAAoyh efnyhoeov, éxvtoph éppnvetov. The most
recent name is the one retained until today: ypvon GAvors or calena aurea. The
Greek word oe1pé. is no earlier than the end of Byzantine era. See also J. Deconinck,
Essai sur la chaine de VOctatenche, | ff.

290 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

In the second Constantinople phase several models also evolved:

1. the first makes systematic use of the works of Chrysostom and
only when his commentary is missing is use made of the Theodoret’s
commentary on the Psalms;

2. the catena of two writers which gives the complete commentaries
of two authors;

3. the mixed Constantinople model, which uses Chrysostom and
Theodoret as the basic writers but also makes use of basic authors
from Palestine.

The catenae to the Psalms evolved in a special way and ended up in
turn to produce new forms of traditional exegesis from which they
derived, i.e. homilies or scholia. This change is well attested from the
10th century, and can be said to have closed the circle of this lite-
rary form to produce new literary forms from those that nourished it.®

Another of the problems that interested specialists from the first
was to know whether catenae can be found that reflect the concerns
of a school. Against what had been believed, it seems instead that
there were no collections that excluded heretical or suspect writers
such as Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Eusebius, Apollinaris,
Severus or Diodorus. None of these is excluded beforehand. Orthodoxy
was of so little concern to the catenarists that thanks to them we
have many fragments, some lengthy, of the work of suspect writers
or those condemned by the Church.

Valuable indications on the date of the formation of catenae are
provided by the sequence in which the authors have entered the
compilations.

b) Formal Aspects of Calenary Manuscripts

The technical terminology for various types of catenae is loose and
thus both their description and the classification by external criteria
can only be provisional. For a definitive classification, first all the
manuscripts with scholia, all those that have continuous commen-
tarics, and the imperfectly described manuscripts would have to be
examined in a systematic way. Even so, Karo and Lietzmann and

® See G. Dorival, “La postérité litteraire de chaines”, especially 211~13. For a
more exhaustive classification of the models of catenae to the Psalms, see M. Geerard,
Clavis Patrum Graecorum IV, 188-212.

THE LITERATURE OF THE CATENAE 291
Deconinck propose the following division according to the outward
form of the manuscript:’

1. Catenae with columns: with two or three columns per folio in which
the commentaries of two or three famous authors are intertwined.

. Marginal catenae (“Rahmencatene” or “Randcatene”): with the
biblical text occupying centre-page, apart from about ten lines in
semi-uncial or minuscule. The exegesis of the various Fathers sur-
rounds this text on all sides in the form of a crown, about sev-
enty lines in smaller cursive minuscule.

3. Text catena (“Breitcatene” or “Textcatene”), in which biblical text
and commentary are not separated, although normally the bibli-
cal text stands out as it is written in uncial or semi-uncial, whereas
the commentary is in minuscule.

4. Marginal catena, in which the manuscript originally only had the

biblical text. The first scribe or a later one fills the margins with

commentaries taken usually from other cafenae and to the extent
that these margins allow.

This formal description of the various page layouts in these cate-
nary manuscripts can be completed today — thanks to the research
of G. Dorival — with a diachronic approach that helps in understanding
the development of various types of catenae. The page layout in the
uncial manuscripts corresponds to the layout of marginal catenae:
the biblical text is written on the central section of the page and the
extracts from the Fathers are in the three margins. However, this
was not the original layout of the catenae. It can be shown that in-
itially the cadena filled the whole page in a single column of text: the
catenarist first set out the biblical text of a verse and then the extracts
from the Fathers corresponding to that verse; next, the following
verse, again with the appropriate commentaries of the Fathers, and
so on. In other words, it is possible to state that the first catenae fol-
lowed the model of biblical commentaries or bropvipota from the
3rd to the 5th centuries, which were used as a model for the page
layout. This is the model followed by the first catena of Procopius of
Gaza. However, after the 7th century, the scholia to scripture became
a new source for the catenarists besides the exegetical commentaries
and the homilies. This new source also influenced the page layout

7 G. Karo and H. Lietzmann, Catenarum graecarum calalogus, 331, and J. Deconinck,
Essai sur la chatne de VOctateuche, 25-26,

292 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

and explains the appearance of the catenae in two columns, and later
of marginal cafenae which became general from 750 up to the end
of the 11th century in tandem with what happened to the content
and again from the 11th century, the catenae turn to the commen-
tary as a model even for the page layout. A parallel event can be
noted in the commentary to the classics of Byzantine humanism.

Within the text or in the margin of the manuscript, the name of
the author to whom the fragment is attributed is usually indicated
in abbreviated form and normally in a different ink. It goes with-
out sayimg that these abbreviations very soon became a constant
source of mistakes: the abbreviations for the two Gregories (of Nyssa
and Nazianz) and for the two Eusebiuses (of Emessa and of Caesarea),
for Didymus and Diodorus, Theodore and Theodoret, etc. ‘The abbrevi-
ation for Origen (wp’) can be confused with the one for wpatov, the
equivalent of our proper, fitting’, the one for Chrysostom (y’) with the
admiring exclamation of the copyist: ypvoodv.

When a fragment by the same author already cited follows, it is
simply introduced by the note tod obtod. If the names of the authors
of those texts have been Jost in the transmission process, this is indi-
cated simply by &doc or dvovbpov.

In the 10th century, the names begin to be removed from their
positions and put in the margins, which becomes a source of new
mistakes. It is not always easy to known where a fragment begins
and ends. Faced with such a difficulty, many copyists left the frag-
ments undivided and juxtaposed several names at the beginning of
the whole paragraph, so that the problem of attribution became even
more complicated.®

Finally, there is a series of illuminated catenae with scrolls and
miniatures of the various passages of the Octateuch. Their textual
interest — besides their artistic interest — is that they compnise a cri-

." For a detailed proof of this process, see G. Dorival, “Des commentaires de
VEcriture aux chaines”.

® Other useful signs, although not exclusive to the catenae (some of them in-
herited by the ancient scholiasts), are:

Keipevov = base text of the commentary
épy(nveta) = explanation proposed
670(Atov) = rapid note

ywan(un) = denotes a sort of sentence
ba(dderyna) = introduces a comparison.
on(uaivov) = nota bene

See also H. B. Swete, An Introduction io the Old Testament in Greek, 364-65.

THE LITERATURE OF THE CATENAE 293

terion for determining the imitation writing, and thus are very impor-
tant for dating the manuscript correctly.'! Even the details of the
miniatures can help to interpret the meaning of certain texts or words
in difficult passages.

c) Textual Contents of the Catenae

In this section a distinction must be made between:

1. the type of biblical text that the catenary manuscripts transmit,
ie. the characteristics of what is called the Calena-group in the
printed editions of the LXX;

2. the material of the extracts from exegetical commentaries included
around the biblical text.

In the first case, in the three groups of writings published so far in
the Géttingen series — Pentateuch, Prophetic Books and Writings
(only in part) — the group C of catenary manuscripts occurs, some-
times divided into several subgroups, in all the books that have a
Hebrew Vorlage. In the Pentateuch, the tendency for corrections that
raise it to the level of a recension are not evident, but instead it is
a mixed group that is very popular among catenarists. It should be
noted, however, that not all the catenary manuscripts adopted a bib-
lical text of this type C for their lemmata, and instead, there are
some non-catenary manuscripts that do have the type C text. The
group is distinguished by having a large number of singular read-
ings which identify it as such.'' In the prophetic books, the catenary
group (C) is made up of the three minuscules 87-91—490 with a sub-
group comprising mss 49—-90—764. Most of the variants inserted by
this group are grammatical and stylistic: changes of tense, mood and
person, of compound verb to simple, changes due to contamination
from parallel passages, etc. Sometimes it follows the Lucianic recen-
sion in its readings; in a very few cases it has a Hexaplaric addi-
tion agreeing with the Hebrew text, taken from Origen’s or the Lucianic
recension. In the catenary group of Isaiah it supports the text of the
Complutensian for that book. In the Twelve Prophets it is closely

See “Illustration of LXX” in CB, 195-201, and “Les illustrations de la LXX”
in BS, 307-10.

" For the characteristic of this goup and its position in textual history Septuaginia,
see J. W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Genesis, Gottingen 1974, 82-100.

294 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

related to the Hexaplaric recension but it is not, as Procksch claimed,
the most faithful representative of the Hexaplaric recension.’ There
are many omissions, some agreeing with the Hebrew text, others not
conditioned by it but rather due to stylistic reasons or carelessness
by the copyist. The additions are few and unimportant. It was sub-
ject to the influence of the Hexapla, but also underwent a revision
that corrected another set of passages only in respect of their
Greek and to some extent following Lucian. In his recent edition of
the book of Job, Ziegler has studied the various groups of catenary
manuscripts and their relationship to the types of catenae to that
book.!?

As regards the second aspect of the actual commentary that they
include, the catenae have become one of the main sources of infor-
mation about the thinking of ancient Christianity, a source which
for the most part still remains hidden and unknown. Their special
value is that they are the only means of rescuing fragments of authors
whose works ~ due to having been condemned or declared suspect
by a council — disappeared completely. Through them one can, to
a large extent, follow the path of those writers in antiquity who fell
under Church censure. This affects especially the principal writers
of the school of Antioch who succumbed in the tensions of the Arian
disputes and were collected by the catenarists in their compilations
because they were only interested in the most complete dossier pos-
sible of a biblical passage, with no concern for schools.

In 1912, Deconinck' published important fragments of the lost
commentary by Diodorus of Tarsus, extracted from the catena on the
Octateuch, and later Devreesse edited catenary fragments belonging
to Philo, Josephus, Origen, Eusebius of Emessa, Apollinaris of
Laodicaea, Diodorus of Tarsus, Didymus, Severus of Antioch, etc.’
In catenary manuscripts Mercati found fragments of the Eisagoge by

" See J. Ziegler, Septuaginta XILM Duodecim Prophetae, Géttingen 1967, 102, n. 1.
3 J. Ziegler, Septuaginta. XI, 4 fob, Gottingen 1982, 125-33.

' J. Deconinck, Essai sur la chatne de ?’Octateuque, 84-169.

® R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de UOctateuque. Sketched out previ-
ously in RB 44 (1935), 166-91; 45 (1936), 201-20 and 364-84. New fragments
recovered can be found in F. Petit, Gatenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum. I. Catena
Sinaitica; Hf. Collectio Coisliniana, and Petit, La chaine sur la Genése I, If. For the cate-
nary fragments in the books of Psalms, see R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentaleurs
grecs des Psaumes. SY 264, Vatican City 1970, and the editions by G. Dorival and
E. Miihlenberg, cited in the Select Bibliography.

THE LITERATURE OF THE CATENAE 295

Adrian which are missing from the printed editions by Migne and
Goessling.'®

Of most interest for the Greck Bible is the new Hexaplaric mate-
rial recovered. We should not forget that the Hexaplaric fragments
to the psalms, discovered in palimpsest 0.39 in Milan, appear in a
catenary manuscript.'’7 When providing a new edition of the Hexa-
plaric fragments which brings Ficld’s up to date, it is important to
examine all the sources that can provide us with new readings. And
one of the richest for Hexaplaric readings is that of the catenary
manuscripts,'* as G. Dorival has proved recently.’ He analyses which
type of calena to the psalms is rich in Hexaplaric readings and there-
fore is deserving of study. He distinguishes four types of catenae to
the psalms that provide Hexaplaric readings:

primary, ancient catenae of two or more authors;
. recent primary catenae such as the one of Nicetas;
. catenae of collections of Hexaplaric glosses;

4. recent catenae.

The principal one is the oldest catena to the psalms, the Palestinian
(5th/6th century), both for the number and length of its Hexaplaric
readings (many of them unpublished) and for the certain attribution
and for the excellent condition of its text. The catenarist has arranged
and made extracts from commentaries by authors who in gencral
had direct access to the Hexapla in the Library of Caesarea, es-
pecially the commentary by Eusebius. The Monophysite catena, dated
somewhat later (6th century), is less essential but puts us in contact
with the better textual condition of the unpublished commentary by
Hesychius of Jerusalem and transmits some Hexaplaric readings as

'6 G. Mercati, “Pro Adriano”, RB 11 (1914), 251ff New acquisitions from pub-
lished catenae can be seen in R. Devreesse, Iniroduction a Vétude des manuscrits grees,
I76ff.: fragments of Eustace of Antioch on the Octateuch, Proverbs and Qoheleth,
published by M. Spanneut in 1948; other fragments of Theophilus of Alexandria
and ‘Theophilus of Antioch, published by M. Richard in RB 47 (1938), 387-97;
fragments of Philo edited by H. Lewy in RB 42 (1933), 136-38.

Y See chapter 13 pp. 12-13.

' See the Hexaplaric fragments of indirect tradition published by A. Schenker,
Hexaplarische Psatmenbruchstiicke. Die hexaplarischen Psalmenfragmente der Handschrifien Vati-
canus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62, Freiburg-Géttingen 1975, and G. Mercati,
Alla ricerca dei nomi degh “altri” twadutiori nelle omilie sui salmi di S. Giovanm Crisostomo ¢
variazioni su atcune catene del Salterio, Vatican City 1952 (ST 158).

G. Dorival, “L’apport des chaines exégétiques grecques”. In the appendix he
provides more than thirty unpublished Hexaplaric readings for Ps. 118.

296 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

yet unknown. The calena by Nicetas of Heraclea, in spite of coming
from the 11th/12th century, is of interest because he had access to
the lost commentary on the psalms by Eusebius and there are very
many Hexaplaric readings.

Dorival prefers a distinction of a geographical or cultural nature
to any other. The important thing is to discover the textual stage
of very first original catena. Once this stage has been reached, either
unpublished readings are acquired or readings of a textual condition
that is more trustworthy than other sources, which reflect more recent
secondary stages. Once this original phase is known it is superfluous
to collate the more recent sources. Although ultimately only com-
parison among the different witnesses of the readings for each vari-
ant and knowledge of the translation techniques and the vocabulary
of each of the translators recorded in the Hexapla allow access to
the most certain stage of the text.

In their catalogue, Karo and Lietzmann provided a classification
in terms of content into three groups for the Octateuch:”

1. The group comprising the ms. Basileensis I (10th century) which
goes from Genesis to Ex. 14:31. It omits Justin, Isidore, Gennadius
and almost all of Diodorus. Theodoret is abandoned carly: from
Gen. 48 the nucleus of the catena is made up of the Glaphyra by
Cyril of Alexandria.

2. Groups represented by Mosg. 385 (10th century), Barb. gr. 569
and Mair. 4673 (both from the 15th to 16th centuries). This is
closer to the next group than to the first. Theodoret forms the
basis of the catena and has many quotations in it from Diodorus
and Gennadius.

3. The group comprising about thirty mss to which the Catena Lipsisensis
belongs, the only one for the Octateuch published?!

Devreesse proposes a new classification, but only provisionally, for
he is aware that all the witnesses of interest have not yet been cxam-

* G. Karo and H. Lietzmann, Catenarum graecarum Catalogus 1, 10ff.

* Also called the Catena of Nicephorus, printed in Leipzig in 2 volumes, 1772-73.
It depends on an 11th century manuscript and on fragments from two other manu-
scripts. It inserts one asterisk whenever it seems that the author of the fragment
has to be corrected in the manuscripts and two asterisks whenever he adds a scho-
ion that is not in the manuscripts he uses. As is evident from this editorial pro-
cedure, it cannot be used to restore the original texts of the catenae.

THE LITERATURE OF THE CATENAE 297

ined to make that classification definitive.” Hence the importance of
our edition of the Quaestiones by Theodoret of Cyr in order to clar-
ify the origin and devclopment of the cafenae to Genesis—Kings, for
they comprise the common basis not only of the Catena Lipsienss but
of all the other groups. As Devreesse already noted, and as we
noticed in preparing our edition of Theodoret, ms. Cozsl. 113 (9th
century) is the oldest of the Genesis~Kings catena and comprises its
earliest stage.”

Finally, F. Petit’s accurate studies have resulted in the classification
of the catenae of the Octateuch. Petit reduces Karo and Lietzmann’s
three types to two, combining their types I and I. The main mate-
rial of the first group comprises a catena in the strict sense, with
mixed contents, composed of short fragments and focused on the
biblical text. The extracts come from different authors and are cited
unchanged. The texture of the second group (= Karo and Lietzmann’s
II), is a collection of more homogenous content, representing above
all the exegetical school of Antioch. This catena is made up of fairly
long extracts and is based on Theodoret’s Quaestiones. The Coislinianus
113 is the oldest manuscript of the group.

In all the witnesses of the first group, (Manuscripts from Leningrad
[St Petersburg], Sinai, Moscow and Basle), Theodoret appears to be
secondary. However, in the second group (= Karo and Lietzmann’s
Il), the collection represented by Coislinianus 113 with Theodoret’s
Quaestiones as the nucleus of the catena. It is therefore a secondary
catena, since all of its quotations are indirect and come from writings

2 R, Devreesse, Chaines exégétiques grecques, 1102: “Ce classement, on le pense bien,
ne peut étre que provisoire: il n’a été tenu compte que des mss qui ont été acces-
sibles soit directement, soit par des analyses, soit par des reproductions partielles.
Nous le répétons, tant qu’on n’aura pas examiné de prés les manuscrits des Quaestiones
de Théodoret, Pordre de tous ces manuscrits cités comme Teprésentant | une HI
famille des chaines Genése-Rois, sera impossible 4 établir définitivement.”

23 N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Sacnz-Badillos, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in
Octateuchum. Editio critica, Madrid 1979, [Xf Within the third family of Karo and
Lietzmann’s catalogue we have found four separate groups, an indication of the
many combinations that the catenarists produced. The first, comprising three manu-
scripts, is a catena of the text in terms of form, and preserves Theodoret’s intro-
duction to the Quaestiones and the names of the different authors. The second group
of manuscripts does not preserve the names of the Fathers, but has many additions
and abbreviations of the catenary type and mentions some Fathers at the end. And
lastly, the third group is mixed: the manuscripts are catenary in the first part, even
preserving the names of the Fathers. However, the second part has only Theodoret’s
Quaestiones, in discontinuous form but with several additions missing from most manu-
scripts of the Quaestiones.

298 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

that have already been reworked. Indirectly, this classification is
confirmed by the fact that Procopius of Gaza, the first known com-
piler of catenae, completely ignores Theodoret’s Questiones.**

d) Methodology for Studying the Catenae

As a first principle for future research on the calenae it should be
noted that the catenary collections have to be studied for their own
merits, without preconceived ideas or concern about the results they
might bring. Before providing a formal classification such as the one
by Karo and Lictzmann, which takes no account of the chronology
of these compilations nor of their inter-relationships, it is better to
try to reconstruct the genetic stages of these collections. In this per-
spective Deconinck’s method is not free from criticism. He divides
the fragments of Diodorus recovered from the catenae into authentic,
doubtful and false. They are authentic when, having compared the
witness of the various groups of manuscripts, they agree on Diodorus
as the author. Well, once it is established that nearly all the quota-
tions come from the first stage of the catena, one has to look at the
first representative of that stage, Cots. 113, which is very important
for Diodorus and to which preference has to be given for identification.

Even so, as of today it is difficult to replace the classification of
the catalogue by Karo and Lietzmann with one that is more logi-
cal, for it has been shown that the medieval catenarists tried all pos-
sible combinations. The most logical way to define a catena is to
determine its sources. The fragments themselves have to be studied
without trusting the outward form and the arrangement, exposed to
many shifts and changes, especially with regard to authorship. Nor
are the scholia and philological notes that accompany many manu-
scripts always to be trusted. Instead, the fragments have to be exam-
ined in two ways:

1. comparing the commentaries of different types of catenae around
a fragment of the text;

2. comparing the fragments attributed to a single author through-
out the catenae. The touchstone for recognising the worth of the

* FF. Petit, “Une chaine exégétique grecque peu connue: Sinai gr. 2”; Petit, “La
tradition de Théodoret de Cyr dans les chaines sur la Genése”, and M. Geerard,
Clavis Patrum Graecorum IV, 185~87.

*5 J. Deconinck, Essai sur la chaine de l’Octateuque.

THE LITERATURE OF THE C4TENAE 299

catena in question is the agreement of the fragments with the work
of the exegete from which they have been taken (commentary,
homily or scholion, if preserved) and with independent quotations
by other catenarists. In cases where this comparison is possible,
from Philo to Severus of Antioch, the reliability of the catena has
survived the test.

e} Catenary Manuscripts in Spanish Libraries

At the beginning of the century, M. Faulhaber published a cata-
logue of catenary manuscripts in Spanish libraries.*> He attempted
this specifically because Karo and Lictzmann had taken no account
of these documents in their catalogue. According to his study, Spain
has 39 catenary manuscripts which include 53 catenae of 28 different
types and run from the 10th to the 17th centuries, although most
of them come from the 16th. Sixteen are in the Biblioteca of the
Escorial; 11 in the Biblioteca Nacional of Madrid; 7 in the Biblioteca
of the Palacio Real of Madrid; 3 in the Biblioteca Universitaria of
Salamanca; 1 in the Biblioteca of the Cathedral of Toledo and 1 in
the Biblioteca El Pilar of Zaragoza.

These manuscripts are of varying quality. Some are of no particu-
lar interest; others represent real finds in the field of patrology.
Perhaps the most relevant are the El Escorial manuscripts, which
include a catena to the book of Kings: undoubtedly the most inter-
esting is manuscript V.1.8, since, although it is late, it is of great
value as it is an exact copy of manuscript, Z.IE19 (13th century),
which disappeared in the fire of 1671.77

°° M. Faulhaber, “Katenenhandschriften in spanischen Bibliotheken”.

27 M. Faulhaber, Katenenhandschrifien der spanischen Bibliotheken, 247ff., and A. Rahlfs,
Verzeichnis der griechischen Handsctriften des Alten Testament, Berlin 1914, 385. As has
been, noted by Faulhaber (Katenenhandschrifen, 251, n. 1) ms. V.1.8 displays in Qeodapov
the fragments from ms. ¥.IL19 marked by the signs 9° or 905m’. However,
Faulhaber adds, “die katechetische Form des Scholions und die Parallelzitate wiir-
den aber cher fiir eine Auflésung in Qeodmphtov sprechen. Nahere Untersuchung
ist um so notwendiger, als dieses Lemma den Liwenanteil an der Kette hat. Sie
hatte zu beachten, dass in 4 Rg in beiden Codices zur Unterscheidung von den
zweifelhaften 8° -Scholien andere Zitate ausdriicklich mit BeoSapov ‘HpoKAcias
lemmatisiert sind.”

In addition there is the systematic search of catenary manuscripts being carried
out in a project of the Institut Biblique of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland),
in order to obtain new Hexaplaric material.

300 THE SEPTUAGINT IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION

SELECT BrsLioGRAPHY

Bertini, U., “La catena greca in Giobbe”. Bib 4 (1923), 129-42.

Deconinck, J., Essai sur la chaine de ?’Octateuque avec une édition des Commentaires de Diodore
de Tarse, Paris 1912,

Devreesse, R., “Chaines exégétiques grecques”. DBS 1 (1928), 1084-164.

Introduction & Vétude des manuserits recs, Paris 1954, 176-81.

Les anciens commentateurs grecs de U’Octateuque et des Rois (Fragments tirés des chaines),
Vatican City 1959 (ST 201). .

Dorival, G., “Des commentaires de l’Ecriture aux chaines”. Le monde grec ancien et
fa Bible, ed. C. Mondesert. BT 1, Paris 1984, 361-86.

“La postérité littéraire des chaines exégétiques grecques”. REB 43 (1985),

~ “apport des chaines exégétiques grecques 4 une réédition des Hexaples
@ rOrigene {a propos du Psaume 118)”. RHT 4 (1974), 45-75.

, Les chaines exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes. Contribution @ Uétude d'une forme
“ itteraire, Leuven 1986, 1989 and 1992.

Faulhaber, M., Die Propheiencatenen nach rimischen Handschriften, Freiburg 1899.

-, “Katenen-Handschriften in spanischen Bibliotheken”. BZ 1 (1903), 151-59;
246-55; 351-71.

—-~~, “Katenen und Katenenforschung”. ByZ 18 (1909), 383-95.

Geerard, M., Clavis Patnen Graecorum IV, Coneilia. Catenae, Turnhout-Leuven 1980.

Hagedorn, U., and D. Hagedorn, Die diteren griechieschen Katenen zum Buch Hiob. 1.
Einleitung, Prologe und Epiloge, Fragmenie zu Hiob 1, 1-8, 22, Berlin-New York
i994.

Harl, M., La chaine palestinienne sur le psaume 118, 1 and I, SC 190-91, Paris 1972.

Karo, G. and H. Lietzmann, Catenarum graecarum Catalogus. NGWGétt (1902), 1
and 5,

Labate, A., Catena Hauniensis in Ecclesiasten in qua saepe exegesis seroatur Dionysit Alexandrini.
CCSG 24, Turnhout-Leuven 1992.

Leanza, S., “Le catene esegetiche sull’Ecclesiaste”. Augustinianum 17 (1977), 545-52.

—~-~~, Procoptt Gazaei catena in Ecclestasten necnon Pseudochrysostami commentarius in eun-
dem Ecctesiasten, CCSG 4, Turnhout—Leuven 1978.

Lictzmann, H., Catenen: Mitteilungen iiber ihre Geschichte und handschrifiliche Uberlisferung,
Fribourg 1897.

Lindl, E., Die Octateuchcatene des Prokop von Gaza und die Septuaginiaforschung, Munich
1902.

Luca, 8., Anonymus in Ecclesiasten commentarius qui dicitur Catena Trium Patrum. COSG
11, Turnhout-Leuven 1983.

Millet, G., “L’Octateuque byzantin d’aprés une publication de l'Institut russe a
Constantinople”. Revue archéologique 16 (1910), 71-80.

Miihlenberg, E., Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenentiberlieferung [, Berlin 1975; I] and
iL, Berlin 1977 and 1978.

Petit, F., Catenae graecae in Genesim et in Exadum. I. Catena Sinaitica. CCSG 2,
Turnhout~Leuven 1977; I. Collectio Coishimana, In Genesim. CCSG 15, Turnhout
Leuven 1986. .

—~ewwm, La chaine sur la Genése, Edition intégrale I Chapitres 1 a 3: la création et la chute,
Leuven 1991; ZZ. Chapitres 4 @ 11, Leuven 1993; IE. Chapitres 12 4 28, Leuven
1995; IV Chapitres 29 & 50, Leuven 1996.

, “La tradition de Théodoret de Cyr dans les chaines sur la Genése. Vues
nouvelles sur le classement de ces chaines”. Le Muséon 92 (1979), 281-86.
—~~, “Lrédition des chaines exégétiques grecques sur la Genése et !Exode”. Le

Muséon 91 (1978), 189-95.

THE LITERATURE OF THE CATENAE 301

——., “Le dossier origénien de la chaine de Moscou sur la Genése. Problémes
attribution et de double rédaction”. Le Muséon 92 (1979), 71-105.
—, “Les “chaines” exégétiques grecques sur la Gentse et l’Exode. Programme
dexploration et @édition”. Studia Patristica 12 (TU 115), ed. E. A. Livingstone,
Berlin 1975, 46-50.

, “Les fragments grecs du livre VI des Questions sur la Genése de Philon

PAlexandrie”. Le Muséon 89 (1971), 93-150.

; “Une chaine exégétique grecque peu connue: Simai gr. 2. Description et
analyse”. Studia codicologica. FS. Marcel Richard 2 (TU 124), ed. K. Treu, Berlin
1977, 341-50.

Rahifs, A., “Die Quellen der Catena Nicephori”. TLZ 39 (1914), 92.

Richard, M., “Ploriléges spirituels grecs”. Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique ef mystique
33-34 (1962), 475-512.

~-——, “Les premiers chaines sur le Psautier”. BIRHT 5 (1956), 87-98.

“Quelques manuscrits peu connus des chaines exégétiques et des com-

mentaires grecs sur le Psautier”. BIRHT 3 (1954), 87-106.

PART FIVE

THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

CHAPTER TWENTY

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM

a) Introduction

The theology of the LXX as a stage of the religious history of Isracl,
and in relation to the religion of Hellenism, is a chapter that has
not yet been examined in a systematic way. There is no reference
to it in the manuals by Swete and Jellicoe. And it is only mentioned
in passing in the classics by Frankel, Bousset and Gressmann,
Nickelsburg or in the recent introduction to the LXX by the French
team and other publications.' However, recently and in various con-
texts it has been mentioned as one of the most pressing tasks of
Septuagintal research.

The topic has two clearly differentiated aspects:

1. On the one hand the study of the theology and exegesis of the
LXX as an important moment in the history of Judaism and of the
Hebrew Bible.’ From this aspect the problem of whether or not an
Alexandrian interpretation and an Alexandrian canon for the Hellenistic
Jews of the diaspora existed, against the Palestinian canon and inter-
pretation, is particularly important.

2. The influence of Hellenistic thought on the LXX, ie. the degree
of Hellcnisation that the Hebrew Bible underwent in being trans-
lated into Greek as a concrete expression of a more complex phe-
nomenon, which is the Hellenisation of the whole Middle East after
the conquests by Alexander.

They are two points of view from the same approach, which con-
siders the LXX to be the main manifestation of Hellenistic Judaism,
and places the emphasis fess on the textual stage it reflects than

' Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, Leipzig 1841, and Frankel, Uber den
Einfluss der patistinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851;
W. Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Fudentums, G. W. E. Nickelsburg,
Resurrection, Immortality, and Etemal Life in Inierlestamental Judaism, Cambridge, Mass.—London
1972; M. Harl ef al, La Bible grecque des Septante, and M. Hengel and A. M.
Schwemmer, Die Septuaginta.

2 See. D. Barthélemy, “L’ancien Testament a mari 4 Alexandrie”, 7-7 21 (1965),
358-70, and R. Hanhart, “Die Bedeutung der Septuagintaforschung”, 63-64.

306 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

on the historical updating and religious thought reflected by the
translation.

From the beginning of our century the idea spread, brilliantly for-
mulated by A. Deissmann, that the LXX essentially embodied the
Hellenisation of Jewish monotheism.’ From then on only generic arti-
cles have appeared on the topic, such as those by Bertram, or over-
simplifications, like those by Dodd,* which by over-generalisation
emphasise the opposition between Semitic and Greek thought. The
truth is that most of the articles of the theological dictionary of
the New Testament edited by Kittel have a section on the LXX.
However, the most significant contributions in this field, marking the
path to follow in later research, lie in the sporadic commentaries we
have on any book of the LXX as an independent literary work, such
as the one by Secligmann on Isaiah or those by Gerleman on
Proverbs, Job or Chronicles.? They are an indication of the cnor-
mous possibilities provided, especially in certain books, by a philo-
logical and exegetical commentary on the LXX.

From the 1950s, several works began to appear on the redaction
and theology of the LXX — not only on text criticism — in connec-
tion with translation techniques. However, before examining the
influence of Hellenism on the Greek translation of the Bible, we
shall briefly describe the cultural and religious background of Judaism
in the Hellenistic period.

b) The Hellenisation of the Jews

The two concepts that determine the evolution of Greek religion in
the Hellenistic period are Euhemerism and Theocrasy. After Alex-
ander’s conquest, supplantation of cult and the ilerpretatio graeca of
foreign deities also reached Palestine. In most cases the new emperors
gave Greek names to ancient Semitic divinities: Ashtarte of Ashkelon
became Aphrodite Urania; Ba‘al of Carmel became Zeus, the Ba‘al
of Tabor, Zcus Atabirios, Phoenician Resheph, Apollo, and Melgqart,
Heracles. The cult of Dionysus became amazingly popular.®

3 A. Deissmann, “Die Hellenisicrung des semitischen Monotheismus”, Neue Jahrbticher
fir das klassische Altertam, (1903), 161-77.

* See Select Bibliography.

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM 307

However, it has to be stressed that before the arrival of Christianity,
no Greek-Roman author was seriously concerned with the religion
of Israel as it could be read in Greek from the 3rd century BCE in
the LXX. Instead they criticised Jewish religion as superstitio barbara,
even though, before anti-Semitism arose in Egypt, the Jewish pco-
ple were considered to be a respectable race of philosophers, whose
concept of God was usually equated with the monothcism of Stoic
philosophy.’

Among educated Greeks of the Hellenistic period there was an
increasing trend towards a universal piety in which the various reli-
gions were interpreted as manifestations of a single deity. Greek phi-
losophy interested in religion was moving towards monotheism, as
is evident in the Stoics, the Orphic groups and other philosophical
movements. These circles soon aroused interest in the Jewish groups
in Egypt and we have the example of Aristobulus and Artapanus
who converted to Orpheus in witness to the Mosaic truth.

The tendency to equate the Jewish and Greek concepts of God
is not only attested among the soldiers of a garrison in Upper Egypt
(two Jewish inscriptions from a temple of Pan) but even in the learned
circles that produced the Letter of Aristeas. The author of that letter
explains to king reas this universal image of the Jewish God i in
the following words: . .. tov yap né&vtwv éxdntnv Kai «tiomy Bedv obtou
oéBovtor, Ov Kai mévtec, hpeic 5é, Pactred, tpocovopdCovtes etépac
Zfva Koi Ato. (“They worship the creator of all things, who sces
everything, the same onc we all worship; except that we, Oh king,
call them differently Zeus and Dia”). In Hellenistic society, therefore,
Judaism is portrayed as a true philosophy of ethical monotheism.

and the thoughtful review of this book by A. Momigliano in 7S 21 (1970), 149-53.
In ancient writers, Yahweh/Yao is often the equivalent of Dionysius. On the syn-
cretistic union of Yao with pagan gods in the popular religion of the magical papyri,
see N. Fernandez Marcos, “Motivos judios en los papiros magicos gricgos”, Religién,
supersticién y magia en el mundo romano, ed. J. Lomas, Cadiz 1985, 101 On the
cult of Denes at Beth Shean and the possible origin of this identification, cf.
D. Fl “Paganism in Palestine”, The Jewish People im the First Century H, eds.
8. Safrai an M. Stern, Assen 1976, 1065-100, pp. 1068 and 1084.

? See N. Fernandez Marcos, “Tnterpretaciones helenisticas del pasado de Israel”,
175-77; A. Momigliano, Alen Wisdom, 91-96, and G. Delling, “Dic Begegnung 2wi-
schen Hellenismus und Judentum”.

® Leiter of Pseudo-Aristeas 16, see A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée a Philocrate, Paris 1962,
110; G. Delling, “Die Begegnu ischen Hellenismus und Judentum”, 10, and
Y. Amir, “Die Begegnung des biblischen und des philosophischen Monotheismus
als Grundthema des jiidischen Hellenisnus”, Evangelische Theologie 38 (1978), 2-19.

308 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

However, this was not the predominant attitude in Judaism in
respect of the images of God in the Greek cult. The negative trend
of resistance to Hellenisation was much stronger, although even in
this reaction they used the Hellenistic forms of criticism of religion,
such as Euhemerism.® This attitude of resisting Hellenism and even
of political and social separation from the Greeks is found in vary-
ing degrees both in Palestine and in the diaspora, in such diverse
writers as the anonymous Samaritan, the Jewish Sibyll (c. 140 scx), Arta-
panus, Philo, Josephus or the author of the 3rd book of Maccabees."

These forms of criticism of religion as well as the equation of the
gods of the philosophers with the god of the Bible were later adopted
by Christian apologists.

The refusal by most of the Jewish people, even in the diaspora,
to allow the names and images of non-Jewish deities to be trans-
ferred to the God of Israel — together with the withdrawal and grad-
ual concealment of the original name of God, Yahweh/Yao — had
a strange result:'' since the abstract generic term used to name him
in the Greek world — partly as xbptoc, which initially had no religious
meaning, or else as Oed¢ — was too innocuous and depersonalised in
Greek, the view spread that the god of the Jews could not be named,
which indicated depravity. Apparently, against this portrayal by Greek
and Roman writers, the Jews made virtue out of necessity and
approved it to spread the idea that the true God had to be name-
less.'? The final consequence of this reduction, which also affected
the early Christians, was the reproach of atheism which they had to
bear."

® See K. Thraede, “Euhemerismus” in RAC. R. Hanhart interprets the LXOX
translation as a reaction against Hellenism, not as a model of assimilation as
Deissmann thought. The translation of the Bible into Greek is the means by which
the Judaism of the diaspora defends itself against Hellenism, taking the war to its
own land, in the same way that Palestine reacted by producing apocalyptic litera-
ture, see R. Hanhart, “Zum Wesen der makedonisch-hellenistischen Zeit Israels”,
Worl, Lied und Cottesspruch I, 49~59, p. 56.

"© See A. Paul, “Le Troisiéme livre des Maccabées”, ANRW TI, 20.1, 298-336,
pp. 331-33.
Pi W. Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums, 20220: “Verschwinden
des Yahvehnamens”.

2 E. Norden, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte religtiser Rede, Stuttgart
1956, 52-62 and 115-24.

'8 The problem of assimilative theocracy not only emerged in the diaspora. In
Antiquities, 12,261, Josephus alludes to a Samaritan temple without a name (td
avavopov lepév) in the letter from the Samaritan community to Antiochus IV (166 sce).

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM 309

The absence of images in the religion of Israel arouses the idea
of pantheism in Greek and Roman writers, as can be seen in the
preserved fragments of Hecate, Strabo and Dio Cassius.'* Also to be
noted is the assimilation of Yahweh ("la in some transcriptions into
Greek) to Dionysus, especially in the treatise Tic 0 nap’ “lovdatots
Qed¢ by Plutarch of Queronca."

The reasons for equating Dionysus with the god of the Hebrews are:

1. their greatest feast, Tabernacles, is celebrated at a time and a
manner that are like the feasts of Dionysus;

2. they also have another feast in which they carry branches of fig
and thyrsos, play the harp and trumpet in the manner of bac-
chanals;

And in Jerusalem the problem arose during the attempted reform by the Hellenistic
Jews (175-163 scx) of assimilation between the God of Zion and the images of god
of the surrounding Greek and Oriental world.

See M, Stern, Greek and Latin Authors I, 11,4: &yoApa 5& Bedv 15 obvorAov od
katesKedooe 516 1) ph voutGew dvOpamdpopov eivor tov Oedv, KAA tov mepreyovta
thy yfiv obpavov pdévov eivar Oedv Kai tHv dAwv wbprov (“It had absolutely no
image of God so as to think that the deity does not have a human form but that
the only god and lord of all things is the sky which surrounds the earth”).

Strabo reacted against the Egyptian worship of animals, countering it with the
pantheistic interpretation of the Jewish religion, induced perhaps by the absence of
God’s name in the LXX and by the ban of images in Israel, see M. Stern, Greek
and Latin Authors I, 115,35: on yup ékeivos Koi siSacKev, dao od« 6p9H> Ppovoiev
ot Aiybrtiot Onpiorg ei KéCovtes Koi Pooknpact td Belov od8’ of AiBves: obk eb
SE 0d8’ of “EAAnves, &vOpwnopdpgovg tumodvtes, etn yup EV todto prdvov Ogd¢ cd
nepréxov hpdic Gnovtag Kol viv Kai OddActav, 6 Kadodwev obpavov Kal Kdcpov
kai thy tév évtov bow (“Since he said and taught that neither the Egyptians nor
the Libyans had the correct feelings in likening the divinity to wild animals and
beasts; nor did the Greeks act well by sculpting them in human form. And that
there was only one deity who contained us all and the land and the sea, whom
we call sky and cosmos and the nature of beings”).

The same idea recurs in Dio Cassius (160-230 ce), see M. Stern, Greek and Latin
Authors H, 406,17.2: keyopidatar 8& dd tOv hoimdv dvOpdnov Ec te HAAG. te nepi
thy Startav mév0’ tc eineiv, Kol wdA100" bt TOV pév GAA@V Oedv oddéva. TILHOW,
éva Sé twa ioxvpiig ofPovotv. od8’ dyadpa ovdév <od8’> ev cdtoicg note toig
‘leposoAtpors Eoxov, &ppntov S8 Si coi ced obtov vopiCovtes eivar nepiacdtata
GvOpadrov Opnoxebovar (“They are separated from, other men in everything related
to the form of life, so to say, and especially in their not worshipping any of the
other gods, but instead they worship one intensely. They never had at that time
any image in Jerusalem itself, for they think that he is ineffable and has no shape
and is above men and they worship him”), see N. Fernandez Marcos, “La religién
judia vista por los autores griegos y latinos”.

'S A historian who lived from 46 to 120 cE, see M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors
7, 258. Vhe ancient Thracian—Phrygian god Sabazius, already assimilated to Dionysus
or Zeus, came to be identified with Yahweh Sabaoth, god of the Jews, kiptog
Sabazius or Kbpwos Sabaoth of the LXX, see F. Blanchetiére, “Juifs et non Juils”.

310 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

3. even the Sabbath festival is not foreign to the cult of Dionysus,
since many call the Bacchantes oaBot or Sabazius’s initiates.

4. the high priest wears many little bells which tinkle as he walks
with a sound as in nocturnal feasts to Bacchus.

Unfortunate as the assimilation of Yahweh to Bacchus may seem, it
was greatly approved among the harmonists of the Ist century ce.'®

Finally, a striking item of information in Strabo is the practice of
incubation among the Jews.!’ Certainly it is the only information we
have that it was practised in the temple of Jerusalem. Nevertheless
it merits better research in view of the many parallels Lieberman
has discovered between the temple of Jerusalem and the pagan tem-
ples and taking into account recent archacological discoveries about
the existence of healing sanctuaries in Palestine and even in the very
grounds of the Aelia Capitolina.'®

* For a discussion of the details, real or invented, in the paragraph from Plutarch,

see M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors I, pp. 559~62. For the description of the high
priest with his solemn vestments, see Josephus, Antiquities TIL, 159ff; Jewish War V,
2308, and Ben Sira 50.

See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors [, 115, 35: éycoipdio8on 68 Kot abtods
dnép eavtiv Koi trip tHv &Akov GAdouc tobs edboveipovg: Kai mpoodoxiv Seiv
Gyabbv naps tod Beod Koi SGpov dei tt Kai onpEiov tods cappdvas C&vtag Kai
peta Sixotocbyyg, tobg 8’ &AAovg ph xpoodoKiv (“and it was important to spend
the night in the sanctuary to intercede for themselves and to have other warning
dreams on:behalf of others; and it is appropriate that those living prudently and
uprightly expect good things from the deity, continually expect some gift or sign,
although the others do not expect it”).

'8 8. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 164-79, “The Temple: Its Lay-out
and Procedure”. Z

'" See A. Duprez, Jésus et les dieux guérisseurs, A propos de Jean V, Paris 1970, 85ff.
On possible references to incubation in the Greek Bible, see N. Fernandez Marcos,
Los ‘Thaumata’ de Sofronto. Contribucién al estudio de la ‘Incubatio’ cristiana, Madrid 1975,
24, n. 6. Perhaps in 1 Enoch 13:8 there is another allusion to the practice of incu-
bation, or at least its formulae and technical terminology are preserved. Gnuse,
instead, holds that Josephus is describing Jado’s dream (Antiquities XI, 326-28) as
an incubation dream, see R. Gnuse, “The ‘lemple Expericnce of Jaddus in the
‘Antiquities’ of Josephus: A Report of Jewish Dream Incubation”, JQR 83 (1993),
349-68,

For the attitude of the Jews towards dreams in the post-biblical period sce
S. Zeitlin, “Dreams and their Interpretation: From the Biblical Period to the Tan-
naitic Time. A Historical Study”, JOR 66 (1975), 1-18, and B. Stemberger, “Der
‘Traum in der rabbinischen Literatur”, Kairos 18 (1976), 1-43, n. 2, where it is
noted that they went to the pagan temples to practi i
Strabo on revelation through incubation has points in common with the view of
Posidonius, but there is no conclusive proof of dependence on him, see M. Stern,
Greek and Latin Authors [, 265, Some specialists think that Strabo depended on a
Jewish source, tid. 266.

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM 311
c) The Hellenisation of the Septuagint

Bertram has stated that the LXX translation could make some con-
tribution to the recent debate on demythologisation. In the Greek
Bible he sees a spiritualisation of the religion of Israel which demythol-
ogises the Old Testament in a process parallel to what happened in
Hellenism with the mythology of Homer and Hesiod. Hellenistic criti-
cal philosophy puts the ancient Hellenistic pantheon to the test and
the LXX shares this critical philosophy.”

Bousset and Gressmann expounded the main novelties that the
translation provided in the history of the religion of Israel. They
consist in the Hellenisation of Jewish monotheism principally through
the translation of God’s names, the idea of the pre-existence of the
Messiah and the presentation of a more developed eschatology which
includes hope in an afterlife. Against the theocentrismm of the Hebrew
Bible, the LXX stands out for a predominance of anthropocentrism
which emphasises the ethical attitude and the value of the individual.”!
‘These conclusions can scarcely be maintained today without several
modifications.

The simplification of the names of God is evident when we com-
pare the range of expressions in Hebrew to denote the deity” and the
normal translation in the LXX using the common nouns «bptog and
Gedc. It is also evident in a tendency to remove any remnant of poly-
theism from the translation of God’s names. The translators use cir-
cumlocutions to avoid the name of God, a tendency that would develop
in late Judaism and in the rabbinic period. They translate ’elohim as
é&yyedor when it refers to the gods of the Canaanite pantheon and could
cause difficulties if translated by Qeot. At other times, in the context
of pagan dcitics, they intentionally translate the name of God as
&pyov (Ez. 31:11), notayxpov" (Is. 37:38), etS@Aov, yAuntOG, BSEAnyp0.™

*” G. Bertram, “Zur Bedeutung der Religion”, and Bertram, “Vom Wesen der
Septuaginta-Frémmigkeit”, 275, n. 3.

“CW. Bousset and H. Gressman, Die Religion des Judentums, 26441.

2% This range of expressions can be seen in F. Cantera and M. Iglesias, Sagrada
Biblia. Versiin critica sobre los textos hebrea, arameo y griego, Madrid 1979. In this trans-
lation into Spanish, the variety of names in Hebrew for the names of God is fol-
lowed so that this feature of the original is not lost; or sce the recent French
translation by A. Chouraqui, La Bible, Paris 1974-76.

23 To denote the Assyrian god Nisrok. A tutelary god, who became nétpapyov
in most manuscripts and a hapax legomenon in LSJ, sce LL. Seeligmann, The Septuagint
Version of Isaiah, 9-10.

* See C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 3-24, especially p. 23.

312 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Isaiah is a good example of how the translators chose the word
eidwAov, which has a great Greek tradition, to denote pagan dceitics,
whereas they reserve do1ydviov to denote demons who prowl around
ruins (Is. 13:21 and 34:14).%° It is something similar to what is
observed in the Masoretic text when it replaces the name of Ba‘al
with boset = “ignominy, shame” (c.g. in Hos. 9:10; Jer. 3:14 and
11:13); by means of this linguistic practice, the judgement of a strict
monotheistic religion is expressed against pagan deities. In the first
two passages where it occurs, the LXX translates it as aioybvn; in
the third as Bac&A. However, usually the LXX considers Ba&dA to be
feminine, the same gender as aioybvn.

Similarly, in Dan. 12:11 16 PdeAvYO tiig EpnUaEmc (stggiis Some)
is an ignominious parody of ba‘al sdmayim, the Zebd<g Odpévioc.”*

The translators of the LXX, who always translate sur as nétpa
when not used metaphorically to mean God, in this last case com-
pletely avoid a literal translation, in case it was interpreted as an
image of God.’ The warrior god in Ex. 15:3 and Is. 42:13 (iF
milhama) becomes a God who destroys wars, svvtpipov moAguovg;
and the wayithalltk h*nok ’et héelohim of Gen. 5:22 (“Enoch walked
with A@~elohim’”) is translated as etnpéomoev 58 "Evay tO Ve (“Enoch
pleased God”).

It seems that the debate about the anti-anthropomorphic tendency
of the Greek translation has to be resolved in a non-uniform way
duc to the non-uniform treatment of the text, depending on the book
and in connection with the translation technique of cach.” In some

*% See I. L, Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 95-121: e¥SmAov, oxic,
webddSoc, BdéAvypa, xerpomomtov, for “eli! (ibid. 99). See also H. Kampel, “Sirenen
in der LXX”, BZ 23 (1935), 158-65. Kampet thinks that oetpijves (Is. 13:21; 34,
13 and 43:29) is used in the LXX to denote demons of death and that they had
a place in the popular belief of Hellenistic Jews.

* C,H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 23.

27 See S. Olofsson, God is my Rock, Stockholm 1990, 35-45, p. 45: “The trans-
lator of the Book of Psalms always treated sur as a divine title differently from its
Kteral and ordinary metaphorical meaning and the same is true of the translators
of the other LXX books. A literal rendering of sur was consistently avoided when
it referred to God.”

* See Select Bibliography. Gard, for example, notes how the image of Job given
y the Greek translator is not the same as in Hebrew. The translator of Job-LXX
avoids the questions that Job addresses to God, does not reprove him, and tends
to emphasise Job’s humility in contrast to his presumptive character according to
the Hebrew text. He also str Job’s trust in divine justice, see D, H. Gard, “The
Concept of Job’s Character”. Similarly, in Gard’s opinion, Job-LXX has a more
defined idea of the future life, an aspect missing from the Hebrew (Job 14:14), see
D. H. Gard, “The Concept of the Future Life”,

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM 313

books the translation is strongly anti-anthropomorphic in nature; in
others it is not so clear. However it is not possible to make a global
judgement about the theology of the LXX on this point. Bertram,
Fritsch, Gerleman and Gard defend the anti-anthropomorphic ten-
dency of the LXX in their studies on Qoheleth, the Pentateuch and
Job, whereas Orlinsky insists, perhaps too much, that the anthropo-
morphic Hebrew terms are reproduced accurately in the Greek trans-
lation of the Penateuch, as in Job and Isaiah.” And in his study on
the book of Psalms, Soffer holds that this tendency does not have
an important role in the translation since at times the terms in ques-
tion are even translated more literally than necessary. Although in
the translation of the psalms there must have been some models or
exegetical exemplars, this anti-anthropomorphic tendency cannot be
identified as one of them.

These nuances have to be extended to other concepts such as
eschatology or messianism in the LXX. Lust concludes his study on
messianism by stressing that the Greek Bible is not a single unit and
as a result, each book or group of texts has to be studied sepa-
ratcly.*° However, recent monographs, such as the one by Schaper
on Psalms or by Résel on Genesis, recover an approach to the LXX
that has proved to be fruitful since the studies by Z. Frankel in the
previous century. They study it as an outstanding religious docu-
ment, as the first Jewish interpretation known of the books in ques-
tion and so as a source of historical and religious information for
the exegesis and development of Jewish thought in the first three
centuries before Christ. For ultimately, the LXX continues to be the
main witness and first fruits of Jewish-Hellenistic thought.

“Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job”.

anism and Septuagint”, 191; “At the present stage of the inves-
tigation we may conclude that the LXX certainly does not display a uniform pic-
ture of a developing royal messianism.”

4 J, Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 174-74, and M. Résel, Ubersetzung als
Vollendung und Auslegung, 247-54, Against the Hellenistic interpretation of Genesis
proposed by Schmitt (see Select Bibliography), M. Gérg develops the thesis of
Egyptian influence previously suggested by S. Morenz (“Agyptische Spuren in der
LXX”, JAC Engédinzungsband | [1964], 250-58), According to Gérg, the Greek trans-
lation of the first chapters of Genesis shows contacts with Egyptian cosmogony and
mythology; see M. Gérg, “Ptolemaische Theologie in der Septuaginta”. Certainly,
contacts between the most famous Hellenistic Jews and Egyptian priests cannot be
excluded, but no linguistic proofs are provided for such influences.

314 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS
d) The Formal Hellenisation of the Wisdom Writings

In his monograph on the book of Proverbs, Gerleman discovers a
serics of Hellenising tendencies by the translator. Many passages are
like an echo of literary Greek writers. He finds Homeric reminiscences
in Prov. 30:19, koi tpiBoug vnd¢ novtonopotons.” Other passages
contain reminiscences of Plato, such as Prov. 19:15, devia Katéxer
avdpoybvatov.** In Gen. 2:21, the Hebrew word tardémd is used for
the creation of the woman. However, the Greek translator, by asso-
ciation, has evoked not the biblical story of creation, but the account
of Plato’s Symposium (139/E).

The praise of the bee in Prov. 6:8abc has no equivalent in the
Hebrew text; also it is unusual, as it goes against the attitude in the
whole Old Testament which portrays the bee as an evil and dan-
gerous species. Here, instead, the favourable and admiring attitude
towards it probably comes from Greek writers: Aristotle calls it
épyétic as in this passage of Proverbs." In Prov. 23:27, rather than
Hebrew Aé-Siha “mugga znd “for the whore is a deep pit”,”? the LXX
translates and interprets niOoc yap tetpnpévos gotiv GAAStpLOg OiKOg
(“another person’s house is a jar full of holes”), words that evoke
Plato’s Gorgias (493/B), where mi®oc tetpnyévos represents uncon-
trolled excess and licence, although the second part of the verse leads
us to Xenophon, Oec. VIL, 40, where the same image is applied to a
house whicre everyone behaves like a stranger and no-one bothers
about ordinary chores.

Perhaps Gerleman’s conclusions require refining. To be specific,
Cook considers that the Greek translation of Proverbs has to be
dated to the beginning of the Hellenisation of Hellenistic-Jewish
thought and it continued to retain, in Hellenistic guise, more Jewish

® For the Hebrew derek °niyyd beleb-yam (= “the path of the ship in the midst of
the sea”), see G. Gerleman, Studies of the Septuagint. LL: Proverbs, 28. Note the same
position of the participle in the verse from Odyssey, XI,L1: tig 5& mavnpeping
téta0’ iotian movtonopotongs.

“ For the Hebrew ‘asld laffil lardémd (= “laziness causes deep sleep”), see
G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuaginia. ILL: Proverbs, 29.

3% Aristoteles, Natural History, 627/A. ‘Che passage from Proverbs runs as follows:
H nopebdOntt npds tiv pédicoav Kal pee ho epydtic éotiv, thy te épyooiav b>
seyvhy noreiten (“or go to the bee and Jearn what kind of holy work it does”), sce
G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint. II: Proverbs, 30-31.

*® Unless the LXX reads zard (“foreign woman”) in:

“ G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint. III: Proverbs,
Septuagint of Proverbs.

id of zond.
33, and Gerleman, The

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM 315

ideas than might appear.” However there is no doubt about the
persistent evocations of Greek culture noted by Gerleman.

The translator of Proverbs was not the only one to be familiar
with classical culture; it also applies to Job. The translator of Job
tended to favour mythology and fable; by preference, the translator
of Proverbs was inspired by poetry and philosophical literature.”

In any case, it is not an easy task to define the degree of
Hellenisation of a biblical book of the LXX, whether a translation
or composed originally in Greck, because it is not always easy to
distinguish accurately between what is the result of actual transla-
tion techniques, determined by the different structures of the two
languages, and the changes due to the translator’s theology. ‘These
echoes of the Greek world that Gerleman detects in Proverbs, and
which in the translation often provoke departures from the original,
are explaimed by Bertram, Baumgartner and Wevers by the midrashic
procedure of interpretation and by appealing to similar phenomena
in Aramaic translations.”

Tn the books of the LXX that have no Hebrew Vorlage, the influ-
ence of Hellenism is more obvious, although is difficult to check
since so little of Hellenistic literature has survived. Wisdom is not
written in Septuagintal style; 335 words of this book are missing
from the vocabulary of the LXX. Its lexicon and style, instead, are
very close to the features of philosophical and rhetorical prose of
late Hellenism.” Even so, the author of Wisdom was familiar with
the Jewish Bible and the popular traditions of his people. Probably
by editing the book he was attempting to prepare educated Jewish
students to live in Hellenistic society. In any case, it is Hellenism,
and not the classical Greek period, which influenced the book of
Wisdom. Its author knows the popular picty of Hellenistic Egypt,
as shown by the vocabulary which is related to that of the aretalo-
gies of Isis, the critical philosophy of religion, and the polemics
against idolatry (Wisdom 13-15). He borrows technical terms used

37 J. Cook, “Hellenistic Influence in the Septuagint Book of Proverbs”.

® See N. Fernandez Marcos, “Ihe Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job”. In
the Greek translation of the Song of Songs, instead, there are scarcely any traces
of the influence of the surrounding Greek and Roman culture, see N. Fernandez
Marcos, “La lectura helenistica del Cantar”.

* See N. Fernandez Marcos, “Los estudios de “Septuaginta’. Visién retrospec-
tiva y problematica mas reciente”, CFC 11 (1976), 413-68, p. 434,

0 J. M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences, Rome
1970, 153-62.

316 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

by the Epicureans to explain the immortality of the gods. However,
his use of Hellenism is primarily strategic, to build a bridge between
the inherited biblical faith and the current situation of his readers.

The author of Ben Sira, instead, in the praise of the ancestors
(Sira 44-49) intends to write a panegyric of the heroes and wise
men of Israel in the form of an éykapiov, matching the heroes and
wise men of the Greeks, and he scts them up for his contemporarics
as ideals of behaviour for the difficult current situation. It marks
something new in Old Testament literature, influenced probably by
Hellenism as to genre, as the use of typical characters was a favourite
practice among Hellenistic Greek writers. It also tries to build a
bridge between Greek culture and the traditions of the ancestors by
writing a book following models of the Greek school and shaping
his wisdom material in lme with Stoic behaviour. However, in his
book a tension is noticeable between assimilation of Hellenism and
resistance to it.*!

If we have noted a series of facts that is by no means exhaus-
tive — both in the translated books of the LXX and in those origi-
nally composed in Greek — pointing to the influence of Hellenistic
thought and forms, it should be made clear, contrary to one-sided
attitudes in the past, that this Hellenisation of the LXX is no more
than external. The gestation period of the LXX continues to rep-
resent one moment in the religion of Israel. What is most surpris-
ing about this stage of Judaism in the diaspora is that it preserves
its monotheism intact. Thus, the importance of the LXX for the
religion of Israel and for theology does not lic in what has filtered
in from the spirit of the age when it was translated, but in what
marks it as a link between the religion of the Old Testament in its
original language on the one hand, and the witness of the New
Testament on the other.”

*' See Th. Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Fudenium und Helenis-
mus, 33-34 and 173-74, and N. Fernandez Marcos, “Interpretaciones helenisticas”,
164i.

® See R. Hanhart, “Die Bedeutung der Septuaginia fiir die Definition des ‘hel-
lenistischen Judentums’”. It is risky to put too much emphasis on the distinction
between Palestinian Judaism and the Judaism of the diaspora to the point of see-
ing a radical opposition between them that never existed. For both Paul and Philo,
wisdom literature through the LXX is one of the strongest links with Greek thought:
“Zl n’est guére douteux par ailleurs que le christianisme, 4 partir du moment ot il
s'adresse aux Gentils, s’est en quelque sorte placé dans le sillage du judaisme alexan-
drin,” state M. Simon and A. Benoft in Le Judatsme et le Christianisme antique, Paris
1968, 244.

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM 317

The few monographs on the religious lexicon of the LXX show
how the Greek words penetrate new semantic fields, introduce ncol-
ogisms and are concerned about a selective lexicon which, as far as
possible, avoids evoking the practices of Greek religion. By this means
they try to affirm and delimit what is specific and original to the
religion of Israel as against the religions of the Mediterranean area.
This process of stating its novelty would be continued by early Chris-
tianity in the first two centuries, following — as in so many other
fields (different fopoi of apologetics, allegorical exegesis, etc.) ~ the
example of Hellenistic Judaism."

However, this selective and peculiar nature of the religious vocabu-
lary of the LXX must not be exaggerated, as happens sometimes
in Kittel’s Lexicon of the New Testament, in some entries on the
use of certain words in Hellenistic Judaism.’® In summary, the idea
which was quite widespread until not many years ago, of the Greek
moulding of Hebrew thought as a result of transferring a Semitic
language to an Indo-European language, is no longer acceptable
today. Two monographs have proved that both the binominations
nefes/yoxh and téré/vépoc have the same semantic range and under-
went the same development and transformation of meaning in Hebrew
and in Greek.*® More recent research has shown that it is not pos-
sible to make a division between Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism.
Both in Palestinian circles and in those of the diaspora, Hellenism
was accepted and rejected to various extents and in various ways.
Perhaps the most remarkable element to stand out in such complex
circumstances is that, apart from a few well-known exceptions, alle-
giance to the Law and to the ancestral religion was maintained in
a world of many fascinating cultures and religions.”

* S. Daniel, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte, and J. A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study
of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SCS 14, Chico, Calif. 1983.

* See N. Fernandez Marcos, “En torno al estudio del griego de los cristianos”,
Emerita 41 (1973), 45-56.

* See J. Barr’s remarks in The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford 1961, 282-87:
“Detached Note on the non-use of certain words in the Greek Bible”.

© N. P. Bratsiotis, “Nephespsyché”, and L. M. Pasinya, La notion de vopog. In these
studies, which are somewhat philological, there is an obvious reaction against the
inappropriate generalisations of T. Boman, Das hebrdische Denken im Vergleich mit dem
griechischen, G6ttingen 1968, and C. Tresmontant, Essai sur la pensée hébritique, Paris
1962 as well as some theologies of the Old Testament. Pasinya’s study (pp. 25/1)
emphasises the defects of C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, as well as the faults
of the entry véynocg in TWAT and J. M. Flashar, “Exegetische Studien zum
Septuagintapsalter”.

* See G. Deiling, “Die Begegnung zwischen Hellenismus und Judentum”, 37-39.

318 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

As for the religion of the LXX, it must be stressed that as yet
there is no theology of the Greek Bible that does justice to the great
wealth of facts provided by that translation and the variety of opin-
ions reflected by the various translators.

SeLect BrstioGRAPHy

Bertram, G., “Der Sprachschatz der Septuaginta und der des hebraischen Alten
Testament”. Z4)V 57 (1939), 85-101.
; “Die Bedeutung der LXX in der Geschichte des Diasporajudentums”. Alo

schen Ubersetzung des Alten T ”, ZAW 54 (1936), 15367.
; “Vom Wesen der Septuaginta-Frémmigkeit”. WO 2 (1956), 27484.
~~. “Zur Bedeutung der Religion der Septuaginta in der hellenistische Welt”.
TLZ 92 (1967), 245-50.
Blanchetiére, F., “Juifs et non Juils. Essai sur fa Diaspora en Asie Mineure”, RHPLR
54 (1974), 36783.
Bousset, W., and H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Fudeniums im spathellemstschen Zeitalter,
Tiibingen 1966.
Bratsiotis, N. P., “Nephescpsyché, ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprache und der
Theologie der Sepmaginta”, Leiden 1966, 58-89.
Gook, J., “Hellenistic Influence in the Septuagint Book of Proverbs”, Vi Congress
of the IOSCS, 1991, 341-53.
> The Septuagint of Proverbs — Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the
Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs, Leiden—New York~K6in, 1997.
Daniel, S., Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante, Paris 1966.
Delling, G., “Die Begegnung zwischen Hellenismus und Judentum”. ANRW I, 20.1,
1987, 3~39.
Dodd, C. Hi, The Bible and the Greeks, London 1954.
Feldman, L. H., “Hengel’s ‘Judaism and Hellenism’ in Retrospect”. JBL 96 (1977),
371-82.
Fernandez Marcos, N., “Interpretaciones helenisticas del pasado de Israel”. CFC 8
(1975), 157-86.
~, N., “La lectura helenistica del Cantar de los Cantares”. Sefarad 56 (1996),
26588.
, N., “La religién judia vista por los autores griegos y latinos”. Sefarad 41
(1981), 3-25.
, N., “The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job”. The Book of Job, ed.
W. A. M. Beuken, Lovain 1994, 251-66,
Flashar M., “Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter”. Z4W 32 (1912), 81-116;
161-89 and 24-68.
Fritsch, Ch. T., The Antianthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch, Princeton 1943.
Gard, D. H., “The Concept of Job’s Gharacter According to the Greek Translator
of the Hebrew ‘Text”. JBL 72 (1953), 182-86.
~——, “The Concept of the Future Life According to the Greek Translator of
the Book of Job”. JBL 73 (1954), 137-43.
Gerleman, G., Studies in the Sepluagint. IT: Proverbs, Land 1956.
Girg, M., “Ptolemaische Theologie in der Septuaginta”. Kairas 20 (1978), 208-217.
Hanhart, R., “Die Bedeutung der Septuagintaforschung fiir die ‘Theologie”. Theo-
logische Existenz Heute, 140 (1967), 38-64.

THE RELIGION OF THE SEPTUAGINT AND HELLENISM 319

--—~-, “Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta far die Definition des ‘hellenistischen
Judentums’”. VTS 40 (1988), 67-80.
~~, “The Translation of the Sepruagint in Light of Earlier Tradition and
Subsequent Influences”. Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 1992, 339~79.

Hengel, M., Juden, Griechen und Barbaren. Aspekte der Hellenisierung des Fudentums in
vorchristlicher Zeit, Stutigart 1976.

, Judenium und Hellenismus, Tabingen 1973,

> and A. M. Schwemmer, Die Septuaginta zwischen Fudentum and Christentum,
Tiibingen 1994. 2

Kuntamann, R., and J. Schlosser R eds., Etudes sur le judaisme hellénistique, Paris 1984.

Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 1962.

Lust, J., “Messianism and Septuagint”. V7S 36 (1985), 17491,

Marcus, R., “Divine Names and Autributes in Hellenistic Jewish Literature”. PAAFR
3 (1931-32), 43-120.

——, “Jewish and Greek Elements in the LXX”. Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume,
New York 1945, 227-45.

McCasland, J. V., “he Asklepios-Cult in Palestine”. JBL 58 (1939), 221-27.

Middendorp, Th., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Fudentum und Hellenismus, Leiden
1973.

Momigliano, A., Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization, Cambridge 1978.

Mussies, G., “Greck in Palestine and the Diaspora”. The Jewish People in the First
Century ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, Assen 1976, 1040-64.

Neves, J. C. das, A teologia da tradusdo grega dos Setenta no livro de Isatas (cap. 24
de Isaias}, Coimbra 1973.

Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion. LT Die hellenstische und romische Zeit,
Munich 1961.

Orlinsky, H. M., “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job”. HUCA 28 (1957),
53-74; 29 (1958), 229-71; 30 (1959), 153-67; 32 (1961), 239-68.

Pasinya, L. M., La notion de vopnoc dans le Pentateuque Grec, Rome 1973.

Pfeifler, R. H., History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha, New
York 1949, 5-224.

Redpath, H. A., “Mythological Terms in the LXX”. A¥T 9 (1905), 34-35.

Résel, M., Ubersetzung als Vollendung und Auslegung. BZAW 223, Berlin-New York
1994.

Roussel, L., “Jéhova, Béacyos, “Tdxyos”. Mélanges offerts @ M. le Professeur Victor Magnien,
Toulouse 1949, 75-76.

Sabugal, S., “La interpretacién septuagintista del Antiguo Testamento”. Augustinianum
19 (1979), 341-57.

Schaper, J., Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT 76, Tibingen 1995.

Schmitt, A., “Interpretation der Genesis aus hellenistischem Geist”. ZAW 86 (1974),
138-63.

Seeligmann, I. L., The Septuagint Ve of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Leiden
1948 (especially pp. 95-122: “The Translation as a Document of Jewish-
Alexandrian ‘Theology”).

Simon, M., “Jupiter-Yahvé; sur un essai de théologie pagano-juive”. Nwmen 23
(1975), 40-67.

Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols, Jerusalem 1974, 1980
and 1984,

Ziegler, J., Dulcedo Dei. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der griechischen Bibel, Munich 1937.

CHAPTER TWENTY ONE

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

a) Introduction

In recent years, important discoveries have created successive cen-
tres of interest about Christian origins, displacing the academic
approaches of viewpoints adopted in the beginning of the century.
A glance at the New Testament bibliography shows the primacy that
Qumran studies have enjoyed in connection with the New Testament.
Although today publications on the Dead Sea Scrolls continue to
appear at a high rate, studies on Qumran and the New Testament
were concentrated especially in the 1950s and 1970s! (although a
new interest is arising in the kind of text used by the New Testament
authors).

Eclipsed by the sensationalism of Qumran, the discoveries of the
Gnostic library of Nag-Hammadi, contemporary with Qumran, are
gaining more importance as the facsimile editions of the various
codices have being published in Leiden (as well as translations into
modern languages). An excellent monograph on the relationship of
these writings with the Bible is now available.”

The growing interest provoked by this Jewish-Hellenistic and pseude-
pigraphic intertestamental literature, as the religious and cultural
background in which the New Testament was born, is apparent,
both in new text editions and in the translations of these works in

' See J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study,
Atlanta, Ga. 1990, 17379. There are some schools of thought that once again
emphasise the importance of rabbinic literature for understanding the New ‘l'estament,
see G. Vermes, “The Impact of the Dead Sca Scrolls on the Study of the New
Testament”, 775 26 (1976), 107-17.

2G. A, Evans, R. L. Webb and R. A. Wiebe, Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible:
A Synopsis and Index, Leiden 1993, and B. A. Pearson, “Biblical Exegesis in Gnostic
Literature”, Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed. M. E, Stone, Jerusalem 1976, 70-80;
Pearson, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in Gnostic Literature”, Mikra: Text,
Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder, Assen 1988, 635-52. D. M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi
Bibliography: 1948-1969, Leiden 1971, and the series of supplements by the same
scholar in Novum Testamenium. See also James M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi
Library in English, 2nd edn, Leiden 1984.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 321

modern languages and in studies throwing light on this little-known
period of the history of Judaism.?

Finally, the discovery of the Palestinian Targum in ms. Neofiti by
Professor Diez Macho has stimulated the study of the Aramaic spo-
ken in Galilee at the time of Christ, giving rise to many studies in
connection with the New Testament.‘ The approach to the New
Testament in the light of rabbinic writings is the principal subject
of Strack and Billerbeck’s famous commentary and the theme of an
important monograph by Daube.?

The common denominator of all these approaches to the New Testa-
ment consists in trying to understand and explain Christian origins
from the linguistic and cultural background in which they emerged.

Without intending to monopolise the explanation of a phenome-
non as complex as primitive Christianity, and being careful not to

3 See G. Delling {ed.), Bibliggraphie zur jiidisch-hellenistischen und intertestamentarischen
Literatur 1900-1965. TU 106, Berlin 1969, and the second edition by G. Delling
and M. Maser, Bibliographie zur jiidisch-hellenistischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur
1900-1970. TU 106, Berlin 1975; J. H. Charlesworth, “A History of Pseudepigrapha
Research: ‘The Re-emerging Importance of the Pseudepigrapha”, ANRW II, 19, 1,
1979, 54-88; Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, with a Supplement.
SCS 7, Missoula, Mont. 1981, Charlesworth, The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excursuses and Apocalypses, Metuchen, N.J.-London
1987. R. Radice, D. T. Runia ef al., Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography
1937-1986, Leiden 1988, 1992, and L. H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship
(1937-1980), Berlin-New York 1984.

“ See P. Nickels, Targum and New Testament: A Bibliography with a New Testament
Index, Rome 1967; B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature I and L,
Cincinnati-New York 1972 and 1977, together with the comments and additions
by W. Baars in his review of the first volume published in VT 25 (1975), 124-28;
M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome
1966; A. Diez Macho, Ms Neophyti. IV Nemeros, Madrid 1974, 78*-102*; Diez Macho,
“Deras y exégesis del Nuevo Testamento”, Sefarad 35 (1975), 37-91; R. Le Déaut,
“Targumic Literature and New Testament Interpretation”, Biblical Theology Bulletin
4 (1974), 243-89; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd edn,
“with an Appendix on the Son of Man by G. Vermes”, Oxford 1967.

5 HL L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talnud und
Midrasch, l-TV Munich 1969; V-VI, 1969; D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic
Judaism, London 1956. For an approach to the New ‘Testament from the perspec-
tive of the Hellenistic world, the old edition J. J. Wetstein, H KAINH AIAQHKH.
Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptac, cum lectonibus wariantibus Codicum MSS.,
Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, necnon commentario pleniore Ex Seriptoribus veteribus
Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis et vam verborum illustrante opera et studio, Tomus I et I, Amstelaedami,
1751-52 (reprinted in Graz 1962), can still be consulted, and the new collection
intended as a continuation in the same line and still being published, “Studia ad
Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti”, see W. C. van Unnik, “Corpus Hellenisticam
Novi Testamenti”, JBL 83 (1964), 17-33, and G. Delling, “Zum Corpus Hellenisti-
cum Novi Testamenti”, ZNW 54 (1963), 1-15.

322 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

fall into a too facile “pan-Septuagintalism”, I shall next set out the
contribution made by the LXX for understanding the New Testament
and the main problems posed by quotations of the Old Testament
in the New.

First of all it should not be ignored that the New Testament is
written entirely in Greek, whatever the early stages or oral trans-
mission and earlier smaller collections before the final redaction of
the text might have been.° The LXX therefore was the Bible of the
New Testament writers in the same way that the Hebrew text (with-
out for the moment considering the problem of a plurality of Masoretic
texts) was the Bible for the writers of Qumran and the compilers of
the Mishnah.’ So far, Jellicoe’s sentence, in turn modifying Deissmann,
“He who would read the New Testament must know Koiné, but he
who would understand the New Testament must know the LXX,”*
can be accepted.

To this must be added that the LXX very soon became the Bible
of the Church and was transmitted by manuscripts together with the
New Testament and independently of the Hebrew text, as one more
item of Greck literature. Thus, textual criticism of the LXX and of
the New Testament poses many similar problems, as is shown by the
fact that one of the recensions such as the Lucianic covered both
the Old and the New Testaments, both considered by Christians
as the Corpus of Scriptures.” However, in such a comparative study,
two important differences have to be taken into account:

1, the fact that most of the LXX is a translation and the New
Testament is not;

® See the comments by J. Kurzinger in BZ (1960), 19-30, who interprets the
expression ‘EBpoitd: S1i0Aékt@ used by Papias to describe Matthew’s language
(Eusebius, Hist. Kee. TL, 39,16), as referring to the Hebrew style which is very
Semiticised in the first gospel written in Greek, See also J. EH. Moulton, A Grammar of
New Testament Greek, IV: Style by N. Turner, Edinburgh 1976, 2, 9 and 10 (“The
Aramaisms are not all primitive survivals of the original teaching of Jesus, but they
may rather be a part of the evangelists’ Greek style”) and the bibliography cited
there on this aspect; C. J. Hemer, “Powards a New Moulton and Milligan”, WT
24 (1982), 97-124, and W. D. Davies, “Reflections about the Use of the Old
Testament in the New in its Historical Context”, JQR 74 (1983), 105-37.

7 See N. Fernandez Marcos, “La Biblia de los autores del Nuevo Testamento”,
and M. Miller, The First Bible of the Church.

* S. Jellicoe, “Septuagint Studies in the Current Century”, JBL 88 (1968), 191-99,
p. 199

° §. Jellicoe, SMS, 354-58.

THE SEPfUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 323

2. that the Greek of the LXX ~— except for some late books — is
separated from New Testament Greek by three centuries.

The influence of the LXX on the New Testament can be observed
at different levels:

1. in the shape of the language by means of which many lexical
and syntactic Semitisms entered New Testament Greek;

2. inasmuch as it comprises the main source for quotations from the
Old Testament in the New Testament writings;

3. inasmuch as it is a source of inspiration for the redaction of many
New Testament passages.

Finally, it should be noted that the LXX translation functioned as
a praeparatio evangelica for the first mission and expansion of early
Christianity. When Paul went round the synagogues of Asia Minor
proclaiming the gospel, besides Jews he met among his listeners many
proselytes (Acts 2:10; 6:5 and 13:43) already converted to Jewish
monotheism, probably through reading the LXX in the synagogue.

b) Quotations of the Old Testament in the New

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of Old Testament quo-
tations in the New Testament since, together with Septuagintal quo-
tations in Philo and Josephus, they reflect textual forms three centuries
earlier than those of the principal uncials. Also, together with the
pre-Hexaplaric papyri, they represent the only witnesses to the early
history of the LXX before the Christian recensions. However, the
data are in such a complex state that satisfactory conclusions can-
not always be drawn.

At the beginning of the century, Dittmar collected Old Testament
quotations in the New in two volumes.'' More recent studies and
specific monographs have completed this picture, as we shall see

© See M. Harl, “La Septante et ie Nouveau Testament”, 80-82; M. Wilcox, The
Semitisms of Acts, Oxford 1965, and M. Silva, Biblical Words and their Meaning: An
Introduction to Lexical Semantics, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1983, 53-73.

1 W. Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Die alttestamentliche Paratellen des NT in
Wortlaut der Urtexte und der LXX, 2 vols, Géttingen 1899 and 1903; now cf.
H. Hiibuer, Vetus Testamentum in Novo.; C. Smits, Qudtestamentische citaten, and G. L.
Archer and G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. See also
H. B. Swete, An fntroduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 381-405.

324 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

next. However, one must distinguish the data collected, however
ambiguous they might seem, from the interpretation of the data.
Only in this way can satisfactory conclusions be reached.

The books cited most in the New Testament are Psalms, Isaiah,
Exodus and Deuteronomy, i.e. the most popular at the time, since
they are also those cited most in the Qumran writings, Each part
of the New Testament gives sufficient proof of knowing the LXX.
These quotations diverge from the Masorctic text in 212 cases,
whereas they differ from the Septuagintal text in only 185 cases. It
can therefore be concluded that the LXX is the main source for
quotations by the New Testament writers. This conclusion, as we
shall sce, will generally be confirmed by the most recent monographs
that deal exhaustively with Old Testament quotations in the corpus
of New Testament writings, although the problem of the Old Testa-
ment quotations in the New has become much more complex than
was previously thought.

After a close examination of the passages preceded by an intro-
ductory formula,'? or those that from context seem to be direct quo-
tations or agree literally with the Greck Old Testament, the most
acute problem is to interpret the many quotations that differ from
the LXX.

The many explanations such as resorting to free quotation or quo-
tation from memory, adaptation to fulfilment of prophecy, conflation
of texts through collections of éestimonia, or the influence of parallel pas-
sages, may explain some cases. However, at this point there is no
avoiding modern theories about textual pluralism in the period when
most of the New Testament was being formed,'* the problems of
the proto-Lucianic,'* the proto-Theodotion or Kaye revision,'? and
even the possibility, as some believe, that these differences belong
more to exegesis that to textual criticism.'*

In any event, it seems that today Sperber’s hypothesis about the
existence of a Bible of the apostles, made up and defined negatively
by all those quotations of the Old Testament that diverge from the

2 Such as todto yéyovev tva xAnpwobi] 1d EnBév, ottws yéypantor, KaBd< yéypan-
ton, eimev fh ypagn.

See chapter 6.

See chapter 14.

® See chapter 9.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 325

LXX text!’ has to be rejected as not doing justice to the facts. In
his study on this material in the gospel of Matthew, Gundry con-
cludes that the layer composed of formal quotations is almost exclu-
sively the LXCX, whereas the parallels to Matthew are so to a lesser
degree.'® This study by Gundry is the first to take allusions or non-
formal quotations into account. Matthew and Mark share 40 al-
lusive quotations: of these, 11 are the same as the LXX, 12 are
non-Septuagintal, and 8 contain a mixture of LXX and non-LXX.
In other words, apart from the formal quotations from Marcan tra-
dition, a mixed textual tradition is found in the other layers of syn-
optic material ranging over every literary form (narrative, didactic,
apocalyptic). The most important clement in this observation is that
the original material of the quotation shows the same trilingual milieu
as revealed by archaeology;'? it also points towards Palestine of the
Ist century as the point of departure of the gospel tradition.”” [lowever,
the problems raised by Matthew’s use of the Old Testament have
not been resolved in this way. E. D. Freed, in his review of Gundry’s
book, points out one of the most significant defects of the mono-
graph: it has not taken into account the pluralism of the Hebrew
text as was made clear after the studies by Cross and Barthélemy,
or of the problem of early revisions of the LXX."! Matthew usually

'’ Set out for the first time in Tarbiz 6 (1934), 1-29 (in Hebrew), and later in
JBL 59 (1940), 193-293.

' R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament.

1 J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum I, Rome 1952, 114-322, W. Horbury
and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, Cambridge 1992, and
P. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991. J. N. Sevenster, Do
you Know Greek? How much Greek could the Early Christians have Known?, Leiden 1968,
and J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 6-9. See also J. A. Fitzmyer,
“The Languages of Palestine in the First Century ap”, CBQ 32 (1970), 501-31, and
G. Mussies, “Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora”, The Jewish People in the First
Century H, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, Assen 1976, 1040-65.

* R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament, 177: “Apparently the explicit quo-
tations in the Marcan tradition became hellenized exactly because they were explicit.
They stood out, were recognized, and were assimilated to the LXX. ‘The mass of
allusive quotations escaped assimilation precisely becausc they were allusive. Beneath
the surface, overlooked, and hard to be changed because they were grammatically
tied to nonquotation material, the allusive quotations did not become hellenized.”
21 E. D. Freed in the review published in Bib 52 (1971), 588: “Gundry can be
criticized for too easily evading the question of specific revisions of Greek texts on
which Cross especially has been working along with Hebrew texts also now avail-
able.” Previously A. Baumstark in “Die Zitate des Mt-Evangeliums”, 313, had con-
cluded that the many problems raised by Matthew’s use of the Twelve Prophets
had not yet been solved and tended towards the hypothesis that his quotations came

326 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

follows his sources closely, and consequently, with slight alterations,
uses the Old Testament quotations that he finds in Mark or in the
source Q, These quotations are chiefly from the LXX. However, it
should not be forgotten that in many passages, Matthew condenses,
expands or changes his sources in line with his own stylistic and the-
ological concerns. These changes also affect the actual quotations.
And very probably, Matthew is responsible for choosing and adapt-
ing many of them.”

Luke, instead, cites the minor prophets, Psalms and Isaiah, but
gives no indication of knowing the LXX Pentateuch and he cer-
tainly did not know its legal sections. According to the study by
Holtz, the text used by Luke is most like the Alexandrian group,
proving yet again how old the readings from that group are.”* The
Acts of the Apostles are part of the Lucan work. The text used by
Luke in his many quotations from the Old Testament throughout
the speeches by Peter and Paul is basically the text of the LXX
exactly as reconstructed in modern critical editions. The changes
made are due to stylistic reasons or theological motives designed to
prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah for whom the Jews
hoped.*

A recent study of quotations in the three synoptic gospels, in order
to test the hypothesis of the two documents in the composition of
the gospels, confirms indirectly that the LXX is usually the basis for
Old Testament quotations in the New.”

The importance of the Old Testament in the gospel of John sup-
ports the commonly accepted idea that this gospel was written in a
sort of dialogue with the synagogue. John mainly quotes the orig-
inal LXX and not the Hebrew. However, when the Greek version
does not meet his needs, either he uses another translation or he

from an ancient lost Targum: “einem verschollenen 4ltesten Prophetentargum von
wesentlich dem Charakter des altpalastinensischen Pentateuchtargums, dessen hebrdi-
sche Vorlage dem von den Samaritanern festgehaltenen Vulgartext des Pentateuchs
entsprach”,

2 See G. Stanton, “Matthew”, Jt is Written, 205-19,

* 'T. Holtz, Untersuchungen, 166ff. And my review of that book in Emerita 37,1
(1968), 214-16. In fact, J. Ziegler frequently follows the Alexandrian in his edition
of Isaiah and in the Dodekapropheton; see also R. Hanhart in his edition of I and
TH Maccabees.

* See C. K. Barret, “Luke/Acts”, ft is Written, 231-44, and G. J. Steyn, Sepiuagint
Quotations, 230-48.

*® D. S. New, Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Cospels.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 327

alters the quotations to agree with the hermeneutics of contempo-
rary Judaism, adapting the quotations to the context for christolog-
ical reasons. His main concern was the reception of the Old Testament
in the New. The Old Testament became a sort of vehicle not only
for the fulfilment of the promises and prophecies in Jesus but also
in largely replacing Jewish institutions with the sayings and actions
of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The Letter to the Hebrews is an important document for check-
ing the biblical text used since it includes very long quotations and
it is likely that these seeped in from memory. K. J. Thomas has
studied the use of the LXX in the letter to the Hebrews.” As the
basis for comparison he used the Alexandrian and Vatican texts.
Against the various hypotheses proposed in past studies (the author
of Hebrews followed a recension close to the Alexandrian [F. Bleck];
his quotations are taken from a lost version of the Greek Old Tes-
tament [P. Padva], or from liturgical sources [Burch, Spicq, Dodd,
Moule]; they are quotations from memory adapted by the author
or are due to mistakes in copying the manuscript [Wete, Hastings,
Stendahl]), Thomas concludes that they are closely related to the
Alexandrian and Vatican texts. Six passages are quoted literally, in
agreement with those texts. And of the 29 direct quotations from
the Old Testament, there are only a total of 56 variants of every
type in respect of Alexandrian and Vatican. Four of these are per-
haps taken from Philo of Alexandria, one from the Letter to the
Romans and another from a liturgical formula. Of the 48 remain-
ing variants, 26 have no known textual parallels and 22 occur clse-
where. Those that have no textual parallel seem to be explained and
owe their origin to the author of Hebrews, since as they fit his

interpretation so well it is unlikely that these variants occur in
Septuagintal texts.

In analysing this type of continuous text Thomas only distinguishes
between original readings and edited readings. Among the latter,

1. some are due to more literal translations from the Hebrew,
2. some to grammatical and stylistic alterations to resolve certain
language questions

% See D. A. Carson, “John and the Johannine Epistles”, ft i Written, 245-64;
B. G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture, and M. J. J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations
in the Fourth Gospel.

2K. J. Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews”, 319-25.

328 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

3. some to textual changes to adapt the passage to particular exeget-
ical trends.

There are overwhelming proofs that the author of Hebrews gen-
crally used an old LXX text. These conclusions are particularly
against Sperber’s hypothesis, who saw Alexandrian and Vatican as
representatives of the two different translations of the Greck Bible,
the first closely related to the asterisked readings of Origen’s Hexapla
and the second in connection with the obclised readings, again of
the Hexapla. The results of Thomas’ study show it is highly unlikely
that Alexandrian and Vatican represent two different traditions. In
Prophets and Writings (the books cited most in Hebrews) these two
uncials seem to be the descendants of a translation of which an early
form was used by the author of Hebrews.

Hanson, instead, notes that the author of Hebrews should not be
judged with the exegetical categories of our time. On the contrary,
we have to accept that he did not take seriously the text that he
quoted, and he modified it to suit himself. Hanson analyses the type
of hermencutics used, comparing it with the hermeneutics of Philo,
Qumran, Paul and John. He shows that the exegesis of Hebrews is
closer to Qumran than to Philo since he places stress on the escha-
tological viewpoint. Even so, he agrees most with Paul because both
authors accept the Christocentric interpretation of the Old ‘Testament.
The author of the Letter to the Hebrews interprets Christ’s work
with cultic terms exactly as found in the Old Testament.”

Paul cites the Old Tcstament 93 times: the Pentateuch 33 times,
Isaiah 25, and the Psalms 19." Of these quotations, 51 agree com-
pletely or virtually with the LXX, 22 even against the Masoretic

8 A, Sperber, “New Testament and LXX”.

* A. ‘IT. Hanson, “Hebrews”, t is Written, 292-302.

30 EB, E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament 16. and 146ff., and D. M. Smith,
“The Pauline Literature”, /é¢ is Written, 265-91. The quotation from Rom, 9:33 is
probably taken from Is. 8:14 according to Symmachus, since, if we follow the state-
ment of Eusebius, he agrees most with this translator, see J. Ziegler, Sepiuaginta . . .
XIV Isaias, Gottingen 1939, in the Hexaplaric apparatus. In Rom. 10:15 it is closer
to Is. 52:7 according to “the three” (actually Theodotion) than to the LXX. In
Rom. 11:4, the quotation is closer to the testimony of Aquila and Theodotion for
1 Kgs 19:18 than to the LXX. Many other quotations by Paul tell us about the
textual fluctuation of LXX, the first revisions of which were accessible to the New
Testament authors and, since they agree with the readings that we only know from
Aquila, Symmachus or ‘Theodotion, present serious problems — solved only partly
by the kodye recension; on the prehistory of these three Greek translators, sce
N. Fernandez Marcos, “Ia Biblia de los autores del Nuevo Testamento”, 176~77.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 329

text; 4 follow the Hebrew text against the LXX, and 38 differ from
both the Hebrew text and the LXX. In other words, it can be stated
that Paul’s use of the Old Testament in the letters accepted as au-
thentic by modern criticism (Romans, | and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Philippians, | Thessalonians and Philemon) is Septuagintal, taking
into account that the textual condition of the LXX in the Ist cen-
tury CE is not the same as the one transmitted by the great uncials
of the 4th and 5th centuries. Barr has criticised the work of Ellis
for treating with too little rigour the facts of the textual history of
the LXX, in particular for not knowing that Kahle’s theories are
quite discredited among modern specialists of the LXX. Closer atten-
tion to the critical editions from Géttingen, concerned with restor-
ing a text earlier than the Christian recensions and carliest revisions
of the Greek Bible, has helped to focus the problem better. Although
he admits progress in the monographs by Koch and Stanley, he
insists that the last word has not been said on the treatment of Old
Testament quotations in Paul’s writings.*!

Even so, J think that textual research alone does not resolve all
the problems of Paul’s quotations, as the influence of exegesis also
has to be looked at. In many cases, Paul’s text is closely connected
with the application of that text to the present moment. These appli-
cations use common interpretations, oral or targumic traditions and
the Targum method of exegesis. Paul uses the technique of midray
peser. In this method, the explanation of the text determines the text
form of the quotation. This occurs in several ways:

1. by mixing relevant verses within an express proof text;

2. by adapting the grammar to the context and application of the
New Testament;

3. by choosing suitable translations of known texts or Targums;

4. by creating interpretations to fit the moment.

All in all, Paul was capable of applying scripture to the demands of
every particular situation of the Christian community like any rabbi
or sage of his time.”

Traditionally, it was accepted that the book of the Apocalypse
cited Daniel according to “text 6°”; these quotations from Daniel in
the Apocalypse comprised one of the main reasons to postulate a

3 J. Barr, “Paul and the LXX”, 77S 45 (1994), 593-601.
3 See D. M. Smith, “The Pauline Literature”, 276-83.

330 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

proto-Theodotion in circulation at least in the Ist century cE.*
However, the study by Trudinger concludes that it cannot be held
that the Apocalypse follows “text 6’” of Daniel, for it contains nine
quotations contrary to that text.** Instead, the Greek version of
Symmachus seems to underlie the wording of the Old Testament
material used by the author of the Apocalypse.

Of the 120 references to the Old Testament in the Apocalypse,
53 can be considered quotations and the rest are allusions. In a wide
sense, Trudinger concludes that the author of the Apocalypse takes
his information ‘primarily from Semitic sources. Although familiar
with phrases from the Greek Old Testament, he could have learned
them from collections of testimonia. In 39 quotations and at least as
many allusions, the Apocalypse reading is against the LXX in any
of its preserved versions. And a substantial number of quotations
and allusions come from the text of the Aramaic Targums. Dependence
on these Targums cannot be demonstrated conclusively, but the mere
fact that there was a connection with the tradition represented by
the Targums is already an interesting result, especially in view of
the disputed problem of their dating. However, the forms of quota-
tion and allusion to the Old Testament in Apocalypse are better
explained if it is accepted that the author knew the muidrasim of the
respective passages quoted. There are also indications that the author
knew a Hebrew textual tradition different from the Masoretic, related
sometimes to one of the Qumran texts.

However, very recent studies have insisted on the familiarity of
the author of the Apocalypse with the text of the Old Testament and
in particular the influence of the LXX.* Furthermore, there is insist-
ence on the different uses made of the Old Testament in that book:
thematic, contextual, analogical, of combined allusions, of universal-
isation and fulfilment, and on the phenomenon of intertextuality.”

See chapter 9.

“ L. P. Trudinger, “Some Observations Concerning the Text”. The quotations
against Theodotion are: Ap. 1:13a; 4:9 and 20:12 as well as the allusions 1:13b,
15; 5:11; 12:4, 7 and 13:2.

® See G. K. Beale, “A Reconsideration of the Text of Daniel”, and D. Schmidt,
“Semiticisms and Septuagintalisms in the Book of Revelation”.

% G. K, Beale, “Revelation”, Jt is Written, 318-36; 5. Moyise, The Old Testament
and the Book of Revelation, Sheffield 1995, and J. van Ruiten, “fhe Intertextual
Relationship between Isaiah 65, 17-20 and Revelation 21, 1~Sb”, EstBib 51 (1993),
473-510.

THE SEPTUAGINI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 331

Perhaps the difficulty of identifying the source of the quotations
in the Apocalypse results from the approach used. Callahan holds
that when conventional critical research asks about the original lan-
guage of the Apocalypse, it is asking the wrong question.”” For
Callahan, the language of the Apocalypse is a calque of the LXX.
However, the visionary author took over matcrial from the LXX in
a poetic and not a narrative form, but at no time does he cite it.
It is the language of a subordinate who consciously writes in the
language of the dominant powcr. He deliberately breaks the rules
of grammar to exercise his own discursive power. The language of
the Apocalypse is not narrative but provocative and political. However,
it intentionally uses the LXX and from the distortion of language it
cannot be concluded that the author knew Hebrew or Aramaic.*

Study of Old Testament quotations in Qumran literature and in
the New Testament has caused Fitzmyer to observe some very simi-
lar quotation techniques and exegetical practices in both bodies of
writing. This is an obvious result, however, if we remember that
they are authors who apply current Jewish hermenutics to scripture.””
And some New Testament writers, as Ellis has noted, use midrash
to establish a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, an inter-
pretation included in the use of éestimonia of these texts. Some inde-
pendent quotations of the New Testament have been extracted from
an earlier context of Christian midrash. Some Old Testament texts
appear in the New Testament in an explicit midrash and as an inde-
pendent quotation at the same time."' In these and similar contexts,
some passages are closer in structure to the homiletic midrash and
others to the pesher of Qumran. Sometimes they alter the Old

*” “When one retroverts suspected Hebraisms or Aramaisms in the text, one cre-
ates the wrong answers,” see A. D. Callahan, “The Language of Apocalypse”, H7R
88 (1995), 453-70, p. 469.

“A.D. Callahan, “The Language of Apocalypse”, 465.

*® A, D, Callahan, “Uhe Language of Apocalypse”, 463: “His language hails nci-
ther from Palestine nor from Babylonia, but from the Septuagint. The auther not
only quarried the Septuagint for code names, but also used the language of the
Septuagint to weave a biblical texture for his text. He did not quote the Septuagint
at any point, however, because such a use of biblical material would invite an expo-
sitional reading.”

* See J. de Waard, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text, J. A. Fitzmyer,
“The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations”, and Fitzmye he Qumran
Scrolls and the New Testament afier Forty Years”, RQ 13 (1988), 609-20.

“ For example, Hab. 2:3-4; Pss 8:6; 110:1; 118:22M; 2 Sam. 7:12-14, see E. E.
Ellis, “Midrash, Targum and New Testament Quotations”, 65{f.

332 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

‘Testament text to fit the explanation that follows. Independent quo-
tations may represent text-lemmata which have been taken from a
midrash. Thus, different types of midrash, targum, pesher and. syna-
gogal homily are probably represented in the way the Old Testament
is used in the New Testament.

All this is an indication of how, when evaluating the complex
problem of Old Testament quotations in the New, account must be
taken not only of the fluctuation and the textual pluralism of the
proto-Masoretic Hebrew text and the process of successive revisions
that the LXX text underwent from very carly on, but also of the
frequent recourse to rabbinic exegesis, with direct repercussions on
the use of the Old Testament text by the authors of the New Tes-
tament (not to mention the various forms of inter-textuality rightly
emphasised in the monograph by Tuckett®).

c) Other Areas of Influence

The world of biblical quotations is not the only area of influence by
the LXX on the New Testament. In fact the background of the
Greek Bible emerges in many other ways. We have seen how in the
Apocalypse multiple and subtle use was made of the Old Testament:
contextual, thematic, literary, stylistic, analogical and even political.
This opens new avenues of research, not specifically textual, to the
influence of the Greek Bible on the New Testament.

The canticles of Luke 1-2, Stephen’s speech and other speeches
in the book of Acts, the Epistle of James, the First Epistle of Peter,
the Letter to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse are constructed and
strung together by a chain of quotations from the Greek Old Tes-
tament. Even books that are not specifically mentioned, such as
Wisdom, Ecclesiastes and 1-2 Maccabees — not to mention pseude-
pigraphical writings such as 1 Enoch‘ — find an echo in the New
Testament writings.

The authors of the New Testament searched the LXX for lin-
guistic inspiration in the same way that the authors of the Qumran

” C.M. Tuckett, The Scriptures in the Gospels.

* Compare, for example, | Enoch 2-5:4 with Mt. 6:25-34/Lk. 12:22-31 and it
will be evident that they have the same literary structure and the same form of
argument. See also A. M. Dubarle, “Note conjointe sur inspiration de la Septante”,

RSPhTh 49 (1965), 221-29, p. 222.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 333

writings used the Hebrew Bible.“ Although the word, considered on
its own in the New Testament is Hellenistic, the style is conditioned
by the biblical Greek of the LXX.* At the beginning of the cen-
tury, the various aspects of the New Testament were studied from
the supposition that Aramaic was the language spoken in the time
of Christ.“° Today, thanks to the study of both inscriptions and
archaeological data, as well as to other linguistic studies, it is accepted
that in Ist century Palestine there was trilingualism.””

Nowhere in the New Testament is the need for a Semitic Vorlage
demanded by the evidence, and most of the Hebraisms invoked
by philologists are more easily explained as indirect Hebraisms or Sep-
tuagintalisms through the sub-language that was created for the
Scriptures by the translation of the Bible into Greek. In the evan-
gelists, especially in Luke, an express desire to imitate the LXX is
evident in the use of pleonastic participles such as dgeic, Kotadinav,
2dv, nopevOeic, cabicas, dvaPAgyac; in the expletive iipEato fol-
lowed by infinitive and in other forms of expression.®

The study by Tabachovitz confirms the results obtained in other
ways: that the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the
authors of the New Testament followed differed in many details from
the known text of the LXX as preserved in the extant manuscripts.

* Ch. Rabin, “he Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint”,
22, n. 80, and A. Pelletier, “Valeur évocatrice d’un démarquage chrétien de la
Septante, [hooxonoteiv, Act 7, 41]”, Bib 48 (1967), 388-94. It is the term gnooyo-
noinoay in Acts 7:41, a biting allusion to the episode of the adoration of the calf
in the desert (Ex. 32:4 éxotnoe pooxov) coined by this neologism.

* T), Tabachovitz, Die LXX und das Neue Testament, 18, and H. F. D. Sparks,
“The Semitisms of St. Luke’s Gospel”, 134: “The bulk of his Semitisms are to be
ascribed to his reverence for, and imitation of, the LXX. They are, in fact, not
‘semitisms’ at all, but ‘Septuagintalisms’; and St. Luke himself was not a ‘Semitizer’
but an habitual, conscious, and deliberate ‘Septuagintalizer’.” See also E. Richard,
“The Old Testament in Acts: Wilcox’s Semitisms in Retrospect”, CBQ 42 (1980),
330-41, p. 340: “Wilcox consistently overlooks the LXX’s rich proto-history and
manuscript tradition,” and p. 341: “Indeed, the author’s (of Acts) acquaintance with
and creative use of the LXX and contemporary tradition in composing Acts hold
many revelations for future scholarship.”

© G, Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, Leipzig 1930, and the studies by F. Blass, C. C.
Torrey, J. Jeremias and especially the influential book by M. Black, An Aramaic
Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1967.

” See J. N. Sevenster, Do you Know Greek?, and the bibliography mentioned in
note 19.

# D. Tabachovitz, Die Septuaginta und das Neue Testament, 76.

* Linguistic usages which Dalman attributed to the influence of Aramaic, sce
D. Tabachovitz, Die Sepiuaginia und das Neue Testament, 24~40, and E. Pliimacher,
Lukas als hellenistischer Schvifisteller. Studien zur Apostelgeschichte, Géttmgen 1972, 38-72.

334 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

For example, the tote ywooxovtes of Eph. 5:5 is a Hebraism that
has been introduced through the Greek versions of the Bible; it
exactly translates the Hebrew cliché of an infinite absolute and a
finite verb, but not according to the LXX ~ which, after several
attempts at this Hebrew syntagm, used specially the participle plus
finite verb of the same root — but according to Symmachus, as is
shown by Jer. 49:22. Similarly, the special use of kai eb0b¢ in Mark
probably goes back to a Greek translation by Symmachus who uses
that expression for w‘hinné in 2 Sam. 3:22. In Mark, «ai i800 is miss-
ing but «ai eb8b¢ occurs many times including passages in which
the translation “and then” does not fit. Thus rather than an Aramaism
based on the construction myad proposed by Dalman, one has to
think of the influence of the translation techniques of one of the
Greek versions.*!

Other traces of the LXX continue to be found in many other
gospel passages in which the evocative power of a word or Septuagintal
construction makes the redactor automatically construct it on the lin-
guistic framework of these Old Testament passages with which he
particularly wants to associate them. This happens, for example, with
the parable of vineyard (Lk. 20:9 and parallels) structured around
Gen. 37:18ff (the attack by Joseph’s brothers) in combination with
the song of the vineyard of Is. 5:5. Or the passage about the prayer
in the garden (Mk. 14:32ff. and parallels) which has expressions evok-
ing the story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22); or the strange
rhetorical imitation of sources that Brodie’s studies have discovered
in the work of Luke.*? The redaction history of more than one New

50 J. Ziegler, Sepiuaginta... XV Jeremias, Gottingen 1957, 429, in the Hexaplaric
apparatus to Jer. 49:22, corresponding to the yévtes yvoeoGe of the LXX in Jer.
49:19, see D. Tabachovitz, Die Septuaginia und das Neue Testament, 91-92.

| See D. ‘Tabachovitz, Die Septuaginta und das Neue Testament, 29-32. ‘I'wice LXX
translates w’hinné by Koi eb@bg (Gen. 15:4 and 38:29) although it is usually trans-
lated by Kai {506, see P. Fiedler, Die Formel ‘und siehe’ im Neuen Testament, M. Johan-
nessolin, “Das biblische «ai i806 in der Erzihlung samt seiner hebraischen Vorlage”,
ZVS 66 (1939), 14595; 67 (1940), 30-84, p. 182; A. Vargas-Machuca, “(Kai) idob
: sstilo de Mateo”, Bib 50 (1969), 233-44; P. Katz, “Dic Wiedergabe des bi-

is ‘und siche’ re 1) ~ w‘hinne) im Markusevangelium als theologisches Problem”,
TK 55 C 999), 5
ss .. Brod A “Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation”, and N. Fernandez
Mans “La uncién de Salomén y la entrada de Jestis en Jerusalé > as well as
other recent works by Brodie and other authors mentioned in BS 75-82. To these
can be added for the Apocalypse the article by A. D. Callahan, “The Language
of Apocalypse”, cited previously, and for the meeting of Jesus with the Samaritan

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 335

Testament pericope is revealed in this method of pivoting on a key-
word from the LXX used by the redactor as inspiration and model
for the woven text of his pericope.

Finally there is a strong linguistic argument for detecting a
Septuagintalism in the periphrastic constructions of the New Testament:
Tabachovitz has shown this in the construction from Mk. 10:22, fv
yap Exov xmpata moAAG . The expression fv yop éywv docs not exist,
nor can it exist, in Hebrew or Aramaic, as in both languages the
suitable underlying word éywv (the verb “to hold”) is missing. This
expression does not occur in the LXX and thus it has to be explained
as an analogical construction from similarity with many other
periphrastic constructions of the LXX (although not with éywv) typi-
cal of translation Greek. By analogy with many other parallels of
the LXX, this periphrastic construction has been extended to a verb
of which the equivalent is missing from the Semitic languages.

SeLect BriioGRaPHy

Archer, G. L., and G. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A
Complete Survey, Chicago 1983.

Barr, J., “Paul and the Septuagint: A Note on Some Recent Work”. JTS 45 (1994),
593-601.

Barret, C. K., “The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New”. Cambridge
History of the Bible 1, 1970, 377-412.

Baumstark, A., “Die Zitate des Mt-Evangeliums aus dem Zwélfprophetenbuch”, Bib
37 (1956), 296-313.

Beale, G. K., “A Reconsideration of the Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse”. Bib
67 (1986), 539-43.

Bertram, G., “Praeparatio wangelica und die LXX”. VT 7 (1957), 225-49.

Bludau, A., “Die Apocalypse und Theodotions Danieliibersetzung”. Theologische
Quartalschrifi 79 (1897), 1-26.

Brodie, ‘T. L., “Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation of Sources in Acts:
2 Kgs 5 as One Component of Acts 8, 9-40”. Bib 67 (1986), 41-67.

Callahan, A. D., “The Language of Apocalypse”. HTR 88 (1995), 453-70.

Carson, D. A., and H. G. M. Williamson (eds.), Zt is Written, 1988, 193-336,

Clarke, W. K. L., “The Use of the LXX in Acts”. The Beginnings of Christianity, ed.
F. J. F. Jackson and K. Lake, London 1922, Lii, 66-105.

Davies, W. D., “Reflections about the Use of the Old Testament in the New in
its Historical Context”. JQR 74 (1983), 105-37.

Dittmar, W., Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Die alttestamentliche Paralellen des Neuen Testaments
in Wortlaut der Urtexte und der LXX, 2 vols, Gottingen 1899 and 1903.

woman (John 4) and for the episodes at the well (Genesis 24; 29 and Exodus 2),
the article E. Nielsen, “Medet vet Branden”.
33D. Tabachovitz, Die Septuaginta und das Neue Testameni, 41~47.

336 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Ellis, E. E., “Midrasch, Targum and New Testament Quotations”. Neotestamentica et
Semitica: Studies in Honor of P. Matihew Black, Edinburgh 1969, 61-69.

——-~, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, London 1957 (reprinted 1981).

Fernandez Marcos, N., “La Biblia de los autores del Nuevo Testamento”. H Simposio
Biblico Espanol, ed. V. Collado-Bertomeu and V. Vilar-Hueso, Valencia~Cordoba
1987, 171-80.

a _N., “La uncién de Salomén y la entrada de Jestis en Jerusalén: 1 Re 1,
33. 40/Le 19, 35-40”. Bib 68 (1987), 89-97.

Festugiére, A. J., Observations Stplistiques sur UEvangile de S. Jean, Paris 1974.

Fiedler, P., Die Hormel ‘und siehe’ im Neuen Testament, Munich 1969.

Fitzmyer, 1. A., “The Use of Explicit Old ‘Testament Quotations in ae
Literature and in the New Testament”. NTS 7 (1960-61), 297-333 (= J. A.
Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testarvenl, London 1971,
3-59).

Freed, E. D., “Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John”. N7Suppl 11
Leiden 1965.

Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, Leiden 1967.

Hanhart, R., “Das Neue Testament und dic griechische Uberlicferung des Judentums”,
Unerliferungsgeschichiliche Untersuchungen, ed. F. Paschke. TU 125, Berlin 1981,
293-303.

—--, “Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta in neutestamentlicher Zeit”, ZTK 81 (1984),
395416.

Harl, M., “La Septante et le Nouveau ‘Testament: les citations”. Harl e al., La Bible
grecque des Septante, 1998, 274-88.

Hemer, G. J., “Towards a New Moulton and Milligan”. WT 24 (1982), 97-124.

Holtz, T., Untersuchungen iiber die alttestamentliche Zitate bei Lukas, Berlin 1968.

Howard, G., “The Septuagint: A Review of Recent Studies”. Restoration Quarterly 13

(1970), 154-64.

a -, “The ‘Tetragram and the New Testament”. JBL 96 (1977), 63-83.

Habner, H., Vetus Testamentum -- in Novo. Band 2: Corpus Paulinum, Géttingen 1997.

Johnson, S. L, “The LXX and the New Testament”. JBL 56 (1937), 231-45.

Kahle, P., “The Greek Bible and the Gospels”. TU 73 (1959), 613-21.

Kennedy, H. A. A., Sources of New Testament Greek: or the Influence of the Septuagint on
the Vocabulary of the New Testament, Edinburgh 1895.

Koch, D.-A., Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zur
Verstirdnis der Schrift bet Paulus, Tiibingen 1986.

McCullough, J. C., “he Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews”. 7S 26 (1980),
363-79.

Menken, M. J. J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel, Kampen 1996.

Miiller, M., The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint, Sheffield 1996.

~~, “The Septuagint as the Bible of the New Testament Church: Some

Reflections”. $/OT 7 (1993), 194-217.

New, D. S., Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels and the Two Document

Hypothesis, SCS 37, Atlanta, Ga. 1993.

Nielsen, E., “Modet vet brenden”. Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 53 (1990), 243-59.

Rabin, Ch., “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint”. Textus

6 (1968), 1-27.

Richard, E., “Acts 7: An Investigation of the Samaritan Evidence”. CBQ 39 (1977),

190-208.

Ruiten, J. van, “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65, 17-20 and

Revelation 21, 1-5b”. EstBib 51 (1993), 473-510.

Rydbeck, L., Fackprosa, vermeinitiche Volksprache und Neues Testament. Zur Beurteilung der
sprachlichen Niweauunterschiede in nachklassischen Griechisch, Uppsala 1967.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 337

Schmidt, D., “Semitisms and Septuagintalisms in the Book of Revelation”. WIS 37
(1991), 592-603.

Schuchard, B. G., Scripiure within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in
the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John, Atianta, Ga. 1992.

Smits, C., Oud-testamentische citaten in het NT, 1 and Vl, The Hague 1952 and 1955,

Sparks, H. F. D., “The Semitisms of St. Luke’s Gospel”. FIS 44 (1943), 129-38.

Sperber, A “New Testament and LXX”. JBL 69 (1940), 193-293.

Stanley, C. D., Paul and the Language of Scripiure: Citation Technique in the Pauline Episties
and Contemporary Literature, Cambridge 1992.

Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthaw and its Use of the Old Testament, Uppsala 1954.

Steyn, G. J., Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline Speeches of the
Acta Aposiolorum, Kampen 1995.

Tabachovitz, D., Die Sepiuaginia und das Neue Testament. Stilstudien, Lund 1956.

Thomas, K. J., “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews”. NTS 11 (1965), 303~25.

‘Trudinger, L. P., “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament
in the Book of Revelation”. ¥TS 17 (1966), 82-88.

‘Tuckett, C. M. (ed.}, The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven 1997.

Venard, L., “Citations de Ancien Testament dans le Nouveau Testament”. DBS
2 (1934), 23-51.

Vogels, H. J., “Alttestamentliches im Codex Bezae”. BZ 9 (1911}, 149-58.

Waard, J. de, A Comparative Study of the Oid Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
tn the New Testament, Leiden 1965.

Wifistrand, A., “Lukas och Septuaginta”. Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrifi 16 (1940), 243-62.

CHAPTER TWENTY TWO

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN
LITERATURE

a) The Bible of the Fathers

The LXX was the Bible of the authors of the New Testament. Its
ubiquity can be seen not only in the quotations from the Old
Testament in the New but also in the hermeneutic techniques and
in many other forms of influence. There are certain Old Testament
passages that following a sequence of keywords from the LXX are
used as an inspiration and a model for the redaction of certain chap-
ters in the gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse of
John.

The LXX was transmitted in Christian circles once it was adopted
as the official Bible of the Church. This fact was of tremendous
importance for the history of the Greek version.

The time has come for us to consider at length another aspect
that emphasises the cultural importance of this translation for the
history of Christianity. In fact, the LXX was also the Bible of early
Christian writers and the Fathers of the Church, and even today
continues to be the Bible of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To a
large extent it was also the Bible of the western Fathers through the
Old Latin, which continued in force until it was replaced by the
Vulgate in the Carolingian period (end of the 8th century) or later,
even in some peripheral regions of castern Europe.

As the Bible of the Fathers, it is worth pointing out that from the
beginning they use it as an autonomous literary work, forget in prac-
tice that it is a translation, and try to find a meaning for difficult
passages within the Greek language system.’ It is the Bible to which,
in polemics with Jews, Christians continually refer. Only in the Hex-

' See S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiérs siécles du Moyen Age, Paris
1895; D. Debruyne, “Etudes sur les origines de la Vulgate en Espagne”, RBén 31
(1914~19), 373-401, and B. Kedar, “The Latin Translations”, Mikra. Texts, Translations,
Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed.
M. J. Mulder, Assen—Maastricht 1988, 299-338.

. Harl, “Y a-t-il une influenc 188.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 339

apla does Origen present the complete text of the Bible, the Bible
of Jewish tradition and the Bible of Christian tradition, for study
and academic debate, although continuing to cite the text accord-
ing to the inherited LXX.$

The Greek version, either directly or through the Old Latin, pro-
vided the basis for Christian interpretation of the Old Testament,
an interpretation which regulated the religious and social life of carly
Christianity. Even the Vulgate preserves much material from the
Old Latin and consequently it can be said that the LXX extends
its influence in the west through this version.’

Leaving aside the quotations that I have considered elsewhere,’
the language of the Fathers is biblical because the wording of the
Greek version surfaces everywhere. An important moment is the origin

of monasticism where the relevance of the language and models of
scripture is evident.®

The messianic interpretations and the various forms of Christological
exegesis, like the theological language of Christianity, depend on the
LXX. In the hermeneutics of the Fathers, the ambiguitics of the
translation emerge brilliantly, as do the various semantic fields of
many Greek words, the divisions of verses and whole chapters ~-
sometimes very different from those in the Hebrew text ~ the new
theological interpretations of the LXX and the supplements to the
books which are only found in this version.’

The philological work of the Fathers on the Greek Bible gave rise
to many scholia, aporiai, commentaries, homilies and the literature of
the catenae. This has been discussed elsewhere.’ However, little has
been written about the LXX as the point of departure of certain
Christian literary genres. It seems that the psalter influenced devo-
tional prayer and the hymns of Christian liturgy, and there are indi-
cations that several Old Testament stories served as models for the

’ See chapter 13.

* See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 474-76.

> See chapter 17.

8 See N. Fernandez Marcos, “La Biblia y los origenes del monaquismo”, Palabra

J Vida. Homenaje al Profesor José Alonso Diaz, Madrid 1984, 383-97, and D. Burton-
Christie, The Word in the Desert.

7 See G. Dorival, “La Septante chez les Péres grees”, 307-11.

* See chapters 18 and 19. See also B. M. Metzger, “The Practice of Textual
Criticism among the Church Fathers”, Studia Patristica XIT (= TU 114), ed. E. A.
Livingstone, Berlin 1975, 340-49.

° See H. B. Swete, An dniroduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 471-73.

340 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

editing of the Life of Anthony by Athanasius of Alexandria, and the
martyrdom of the Maccabees was the basis for the composition of
the Acts of the martyrs and other Christian writings.'°

Two areas of influence deserve particular mention because they
have gone almost unnoticed: the chapter of introductions to Scripture
and the chapter of rewritings of the Bible.

Among the former we can include two Synopsis scriplurae sacrae, one
attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373) and the other to
John Chrysostom,'' both requiring modern editions and studies to
determine their true authorship, their chronology and their length;
the Liber Regularum of the African Donatist Tyconius (c. 380), the first
Latin compendium of biblical hermencutics;'? Hadrian’s Eisagoge in
sacras scripluras (beginning of the 5th century), which systematised the
exegetical principles of the Antioch School; and the treatise De Mensurns
el Ponderibus by Epiphanius (c. 392), a veritable encyclopaedic intro-
duction, preserved completely in Syriac and partially in Greek, which
deals with biblical books, biblical translations, weights and measures
and the geography of Palestine.'? In about 542, Junilius the African
translated into Latin and re-edited in Constantinople a work writ-
ten in Greck by the Persian Paul of Nisibis. It has the tithe Jnstituta
regularia dwinae legis, and it is an introduction to the study of the Bible
which deals with important topics and includes faithfully Theodore
of Mopsuestia’s points of view.

The other chapter is about rewritings of the Bible, cither through
the use of paraphrase to adapt the language of Scripture to the usage

Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Oxford 1979, L~LVII, and J. Rougé, “Le de mortibus per-
secutorum, 5e livre des Macchabées”, Studia Patristica XII, 135-43,

See PG 28, 284-437, and PG 56, 313-86 (incomplete). See CPG IL, 3746, and
E. Klosterman, Analecta zur Septuaginta, Hexapla und Patristik, Leipzig 1895,

" See H. Jordan, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Leipzig 1911, 423-27; F. C.
Burkitt, The Rules of Tyconius, Cambridge 1894, and W. S. Babcock, Tyconius: The
Book of Rules, Atlanta, Ga. 1989. Augustine depends on these rules in writing the
first three books of his De doctrina Christiana, on biblical hermeneutics. ‘Through
Augustine’s work these rules by ‘Tyconius were to have a decisive influence in the
Middle Ages and on the main biblical introductions of the Renaissance: P. A.
Beuter, M. Martinez of Cantalapiedra, Sixto of Siena and Flacius Ilyricus.

8 In spite of the importance of Hadrian’s Kisagoge, the most recent edition is still
the one by F. Goessling, Adnans Eisagoge eis las theias graphas, Berlin 1887. Furthermore,
the edited text, apparently, only contains a summary of Hadrian’s work, as can be
shown from some fragments transmitted by the catenae, CPG IH, 6527, ‘The
urgent need for a complete examination of the manuscript tradition, a critical edi-
tion and a more detailed analysis of this writing are therefore evident.

THE SEPTUAGINI AND EARLY GHRISTIAN LITERATURE 341

of the period, or by the use of versification to adapt it to the peda-
gogical needs required by the legislation of the empire. An example
of the former has come down to us in the Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes
by Gregory Thaumaturgos."' ‘Towards the end of the 3rd century,
this writer, a disciple of Origen, wrote a paraphrase of Qoheleth
adapting it to the language of his century. In this way, not only did
he bring about a linguistic transformation of the book, improving
the style of the Greck and removing the Semitisms of a literal trans-
lation which makes it one of the predecessors of Aquila, but at the
same time he eliminated the more shocking elements of Qoheleth’s
thought, harmonising them with Christian theology. Gregory Chris-
tianised the book to such an extreme that sometimes he makes
it say things different from the original Greek, such as that the
wise man will never have the same fate as the wicked. To preserve
the Salomonic authorship of the book, some of its more daring
opinions are attributed to young Solomon at the same time that
it has to be admitted that on reaching old age he really knows that
these points of view are false. In this way, the original book is turned
into a moralising sermon preached to the assembly of God for
the wisest of his chosen messengers. With this work Gregory does
the same service for the assembly of God that the Aramaic para-
phrase did for the Jewish community, in presenting Qoheleth’s words
in harmony with Jewish tradition. He turned the book of Eccle-
siastes into a pious book of the Church and opened the way to
allegorical interpretation, which was to predominate after Jerome’s
commentary.!°

There must have been several attempts at the versification of the
Bible with the aim of ‘Homerising’ it. However, we only know of
one epic poem with a biblical theme, attributed to Apollinaris of
Laodicea, which continued the tradition begun by Hellenistic Judaism
of putting biblical history into hexameters with works such as those
by Theodotus on Shechem or Ezekiel the Tragedian on Exodus

"See the edition in PG 10, 963/1232. This work has merited the attention of
several recent studies such as K. W. Noakes, “The Metaphrase on Eccl of
Gregory ‘Thaumaturgus”, Studia Patristica 15 TU 128), ed. E. A. Livingstone,
Berlin 1984, 196-99; TF. Vinel, “La Metaphrasis in Ecclesiasten de Grégoire le ‘Thau-
maturge: entre traduction ct interprétation, une explication de texte”, Cahiers de
Biblia Patristica 1, Strasbourg 1987, 191-215, and J. Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos’
Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. SCS 29, Atlanta, Ga. 1990.

342 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

(Exagoge).'° As Sozomenus tells us, the decree of the emperor Julian
(362) which forbade Christians from teaching the Greek poets in
school, made Apollinaris compose an epic of twenty-four poems in
hexameters on biblical history up to the reign of Saul, of which
nothing has survived.'”

The decree was abrogated two years later and Christians did not
wish to deprive themselves of the legacy of pagan Greek literature
in teaching in schools. However, a century later, an anonymous
writer, probably from Alexandria, composed a paraphrase of the
Greek psalter in Homeric verses, which fortunately does survive.’

The Fathers of the Church did not formulate specific exegetical
rules as did the rabbis,'® however they relied on a few principles or
criteria of interpretation common to them all: the principle of the
unity of the biblical text of the two Testaments, the interpretation
of the Old in the light of the New, and the conviction that all the
texts of the Old Testament spoke of Christ and of Christian mys-
teries.” The various schools adopted these principles, modifying them
with various refinements, either preferring to stress allegory (Alexandria)
or insisting instead on typology (Antioch).”!

S. Brock, “Bibeliiberseizungen I”, 170.

% Sozomenus, Hist. Ecc. V, 18, in Sozomenus Ki archengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez, G. C.
Hansen, Berlin 1960, p. 222: ivi: 5h “Anodwvépiog obt0G std Konpov th rokyuobele
kal th pice. ypnodevoc, dvti pév tig ‘Opnpov moujcens év Eneow ‘pdorc tiv
‘EBpaixiv: &pyatodoyiav ovveypéyoto péxpi ths LoobdA Bactreiag Kai eic
eixoortécoapa pépy thy ma&oov npayyateiav Sietdev, Exdotm tou@ mpoonyopiay
Gépevog Spdhvopov toig nap’ “EAAnGt otorzelors Kate TaV tobtov dpWpdy Kai THELv
(“When this certain Apollinaris, thanks to his capabilities and his education, had
the opportunity, he composed, as a counterpart to the poetry of Homer, the ancient
Hebrew history in heroic epic until the kingdom of Saul; and he divided the ma-
terial into 24 parts, giving each volume a title similar to the Greek poems, using
the same numbering and distribution”).

Sozomenus then adds that for the same purpose Apollinaris composed comedies,
tragedies and lyric poems like those by Menander, Euripides and Pindar.

™ See G. Dorival, “Antiquité chrétienne et Bible”, 75; J. Golega, Der homerische
Psalter, Ettal 1960; A. Ludwig, Apollinari metaphrasis Psalmorum, Leipzig 1912, and
K. Thraede, “Ps.-Apollinarios”, RAC 5 (1962), 1003-1006. For similar versification
in Latin, see K. Smolak, “Latcinische Umdichtungen des biblischen Schépfungs-
berichtes”, Studia Patristica X11, 350-60.

'" See J. Trebolle, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, 479-81.

*” See H. F. von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tibingen
1969, 378: “Die christliche Bibel ~ das ist die erste und durch nichts zu erschiit-
ternde Erkenntnis — entstcht und gilt als das Christusbuch. Die ‘Herrenschriften’ bezeu-
gen den Herrn, das Alte Testament prophetisch, das Neue ‘Testament historisch.
Christus spricht in beiden ‘l'estamenten und ist ihr eigentlicher Inhalt. Dies allein
macht sie zur christlichen Bibel, zum Buch der christlichen Kirche.”

2 See G. Dorival, “La Septante chez les Péres grecs”, 297-99, and J. Trebolle,
The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, 528-31.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 343

The Fathers used the various texts attested by the different Christian
recensions depending on the area from which the authors came.
They often used variants from the other Greek versions to explain
the passage on which they are commenting. That is to say, they
used the various textual forms for their exegesis and took advantage
of the different variants as stages of the text that have normative
value. In addition, according to Origen’s theory, words are in-
capable of fully expressing the meaning or exhausting all the mean-
ings of the original. This type of exegesis caused them to defend a
plurality of meanings in Scripture, meanings which sometimes were
contradictory, which have been transmitted as a reflection of the vari-
ous re-readings of scripture throughout the centuries.”

b) The Septuagint and Christian Greek

There is an aspect of the survival of the LXX that is not without
interest for the history of the Greek language: the question as to whether
or not the language of the LXX influenced the Greek used by
Christians. The difficulties emerge as soon as the question is posed,
ic. whether one can really speak about Christian Greek. In this
respect it is worth remembering the criticisms made by M. Harl
when G. W. H. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon was published.” It is
difficult to separate elements dependent upon the general evolution
of a language from those produced by the effect of external agents,
such as the influence of translation Greek or biblical Greek. M. Harl
criticised the approach used in preparing that dictionary, which
focuses onc-sidedly on new words of the Christian lexicon and on
words that are important for the history of ideas and institutions.
Lampe’s dictionary, instead, leaves out the vocabulary of the com-
mon everyday language of Christians, which was probably close to
profane Greek of the period, of the Stoics, of average Platonism or
the moralists and popular philosophers. Christian Greek has to be
studicd as an extension of classical Greek on the one hand, and of
biblical and Jewish-Hellenistic Greck on the other. Gencrally, it seems
clear that it has fewer neologisms than Christian Latin.** In any case

® See M. Harl, “La Septante et la pluralité textuelle”; Harl, “Le renouvellement
du lexique des Septante”, and G. Dorival, “Antiquité chrétiennne et Bible”, 79.
* M. Harl, “Remarques de la Jangue des chrétiens”.
* See Ch. Mohrmann’s studics on the Latin used by Christians especially “Linguis-
tic Problems of the Early Christian Church”, VC 11 (1957), 11-37.

344 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

it would be necessary, as Deissmann and Moulton did for the New
Testament Greek in relation to the papyri,” for Christian Greek to
be submitted to a similar comparison with the language of the philo-
sophers and moralists of late antiquity. We can only determine what
is peculiar to Christian Greek if we have available a lexicon of post-
classical Greek philosophy where the many philosophical and moral
movements adopt a religious tone.”* M. Harl has followed this phe-
nomenon, analysing closely the commentaries on Psalm 118 and con-
cludes that the number of words from the LXX directly adopted by
Christians and not through the New Testament, is very small. She
only records three words from the psalm adopted by Christians with
anew meaning: éd0oAeoxia as “meditation” on the divine Law; taneivacig
as “probation, ascetic testing”; and éxndia as a “state of worry an
distress”.?”? In short, the influence remains restricted to a handful o!
words belonging to the semantic field of spiritual or monastic life.
However, what is most surprising is that one cannot speak of a lin-
ear process that considers the Greek of Christians as a continuation
of biblical Greek tout court. Together with the assimilation of part o.
the biblical vocabulary there is also in the Fathers a parallel process
of estrangement with respect to the language of the LXX. Perhaps,
as it is translation Greek, once it lost contact with Hebrew, it con-
tinued to be difficult Greek for these writers, a Greek that needed
interpretation. Hence they continually refer in their writings to a
series of voces biblicae or words peculiar to Scripture.

In addition, the various forerunners of Christianity and in particu-
lar, the process of coming towards or away from Greek culture had
repercussions on the development of the Greek of the Christians.
The first generations of the Apostolic Fathers went through a new
experience which left its mark on the language. They considered
themselves to be a group of people apart, different from the Jews
and the other worshippers of many gods, whether they were Greeks,
Egyptians or Syrians.* Bartclink has analysed the language of the.
Apostolic Fathers as the language of a group, concluding that its
reaching the conclusion that its specific vocabulary went beyond the

® See chapter |.

* M. Harl, “Remarques sur la langue des chrétiens”, 181-82.
M, Harl, “Y-a-t-il une influence”, 200-202,

28 See Aristides, Apology, 2.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 345

vocabulary of other special languages.” The Apologists, instead, sys-
tematically and by design, avoid specifically Christian words and
shun certain topics of the new religion, since the aim of their writ-
ings is to introduce Christianity to society with patterns that are
familiar to their readers.”

Another important event, the transition of Christianity to the state
religion under Constantine, also has repercussions on the language.
In the 4th and 5th centuries, the religious terminology of the mys-
tery religions, which was carefully avoided in the earliest writings,
emerges comprchensively in the vocabulary of the cult. One can
even speak in some sense of a supplantation of the language by
which the terms used for the mysteries of Eleusis, Isis or Sabazius
come to denote the sacraments of Christian initiation.*! The writers
of the golden age of the Fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of
Nazianz, Gregory of Nyssa or John Chrysostom, begin to form the
best universities of the time, in Athens or Alexandria, together with
their pagan colleagues. They follow the classical models and set them-
selves up as continuing literary koiné. Some of them even artificially
revive the ancient dialects’ (Sincsius of Cyrene writes his hymns in
Doric, several poems of Gregory of Nazianz are in Acolic) or ancient
metre (the iambic trimeters of Gregory of Nazianz or the anacre-
ontics of Sophronius of Jerusalem). Accordingly, the survival of bib-
lical Greek has to be sought, as M. Hari had already insisted, in the
vocabulary of the spiritual and monastic life and in secondary liter-
ature: gospels and apocryphal acts of the Apostles, acts of the martyrs,
hagiographical writings, accounts of miracles and monastic legends.”

In sum, the study of the Greek of the Christians can only be
begun as a continuation of classical and Hellenistic Greek and within
the general evolution that Greek underwent in the Byzantine period.
The historical changes or the successive dominant cultural periods
influenced the development of the language, but on its own this
influence does not justify the spoken language of a particular lan-
guage group. In fact, no-one speaks the language of the Stoics, of

* G, J. M. Bartelink, Lexicologisch-semantische Studie over de Taal van de apostolische
Vaders. Bijdrage tot de Studie van de groeptaal der griekse Christenen, Utrecht 1952.

* G. J. M. Bartelink, “Die Mcidung heidnischer oder christlicher Termini in
dem frithchristlichen Sprachgebrauch”, VC 19 (1965), 193-210.

4 See N. Fernandez Marcos, “En torno al estudio del griego de los cristianos”,

® N. Fernandez Marcos, “En torno al estudio del griego de los cristianos”, 54.

346 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Pythagorism or of neo-Platonism. However, the component of bib-
lical Greek brings to the language of the Christians, and in particu-
Jar of the spiritual life, the baggage of neologisms which must be
taken into account in the historical study of the language.

c) The Septuagint Translated

Perhaps the most important cultural impact of the LXX in early
Christian literature is due to the many translations of it into the
main languages of late antiquity.

Not only did Christianity adopt a translated Bible as the official
Bible, but from its beginnings it was a religion that favoured trans-
lation of the Bible into vernacular languages. Unlike Jewish commu-
nities, the Christian communities did not feel themselves to be chained
to the Hebrew text as such but only to its contents, nor were
they tied to the Greek text of the LXX. The new translations, as
distinct from happened with the Aramaic Targumim, became inde-
pendent and took the place of the original in the life of the com-
munities. This attitude conferred on the new versions of a Bible a
status unlike that of the Jewish translations. They were not merely
an aid to understanding the text but they replaced the original with
authority. Hence, biblical translation is spoken of as a specifically
Christian activity.

It is appropriate to note that, with the exception of the Aramaic
translations, most of the ancient versions of the Bible were made
from the LXX and not from the Hebrew. Not even the Peshitta or
the Vulgate, most of which was translated from Hebrew, are immune
to the influence of the LXX,

These versions accompanied: Christianity in its expansion to the
limits of the Roman Empire,” echo the social movements and theo-
logical conflicts of antiquity,® and have an appreciable cultural impor-
tance. In fact, in some cases, such as the versions into Armenian,
Georgian, Gothic or ancient Slavonic, they coincide with the inven-
tion of the alphabet in those languages and with the beginning of

*® See Ch. Rabin, “Cultural Aspects of Bible Translation”, 43. Christianity was
polyglot from its beginnings and to this tradition belong Origen’s Hexapla and the
16th- and 17th-century polyglot bibles.

* HL. Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity.

See G. Bardy, La question des langues dans UEglise ancienne, \-79.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 347

the vernacular literature of those peoples. They are pioneer works
of enormous linguistic interest, as they represent the oldest docu-
ments we have for the study of these languages and literatures.

The new traditions also became a vehicle for the spread of bib-
lical and para-biblical literature to new cultures. For it should not
be forgotten that most pseudepigraphical literature, which grew in
the shadow of the Bible between the 3rd century pcr and the 3rd
century CE, has reached us through these versions. They also throw
light on areas of the history of the canon that were in shadow: the
late translation of the Apocalypse into Georgian shows the doubts
about the canonicity of this book which some Eastern Churches main-
tained; and the presence of the book of Enoch or the book of Jubi-
lees in the Ethiopic Bible shows us that these books were venerated
as canonical in that community.

In what follows, I provide a short survey of the main ancient ver-
sions of the LXX, which may serve as a guide to further study. I
shall indicate the cultural importance and the methodological cri-
teria required for using it in textual criticism of the Bible. Since each
language codifies reality, shaping it in its own image, it is first
necessary to know the structures of the various languages in order
to evaluate correctly the various translation techniques and the lim-
itations of cach translation.%”

1. The Oriental versions

The Coptic versions

In the latest publications it has been topical to speak of the obscure
origins of Christianity in Egypt, its relation with the brilliant tradi-
tion of Hellenistic Judaism, with Gnosis and other unorthodox forms
of Christianity. There is a certain consensus that Egyptian Christianity
was based on a wider literary tradition and on a less defined ecclesi-
astical tradition than the Christianity of Syria or Rome.” Also the

3 See A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament; J. H.
Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, 1. Jordan, Geschichte der altchristhichen
Literatur, 430-44; M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to the Patriarchy and Prophets,
Jerusalem 1982; Stone, Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha, with Special
Reference to the Armenian Tradition, Leiden 1991, and A, de Santos Otero, Die hand-
schrifiliche Uberlieferung der altslavischen Apokryphen, Berlin~New York 1978.

% See La Septuaginia, 15-82 for a more detailed study of these aspects as applied
to Greek, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic and Latin.

% See C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, Oxford 1979,
and C. W. Griggs, Karly Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 CE, Leiden 1990.

348 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

origins of the Coptic versions of the Old and New Testaments remain
in the shade. Christianity first set root in Alexandria, a Greek-
speaking city which needed no other translation than the LXX. Only
when the Christian mission penetrated Egypt’s interior were trans-
lations into the Egyptian vernacular, i.e. Coptic, necessary. The Vila
Anionti opens with Athanasius relating how Anthony felt the call of
the desert on hearing Matthew’s gospel in the liturgy. Anthony knew
Coptic and not Greek, as is repeated once or twice in his biogra-
phy. Thus it can be concluded that in the second half of the 3rd
century, the gospels had already been translated into Coptic. In fact,
the oldest biblical manuscript in Coptic that we have, Papyrus Bod-
mer VI with the book of Proverbs, comes from the close of the 3rd
century.

The translation of the bible into Coptic is not uniform because
the language is divided into three dialects based on differences in
location and text: Akhmimic, Sahidic and Bohairic. There was only
one complete translation of the Old Testament into Sahidic but we
do not have any manuscripts that contain the whole Old Testament.
The tradition varies from book to book, from the existence of sev-
eral witnesses of the same document to mere fragments.

Three stages can be distinguished in the Coptic versions of the bible:

1. from the 2nd to the 4th centuries, when translators worked sep-
arately in the various dialects using different methods;

2. during the 4th and 5th centuries, the canonisation and standard-
isation of the Sahidic translation took place;

3. a third stage that presupposes the standardisation of the translation
into Bohairic which was completed probably in the 9th century.

In other words, at the beginning there was a variety of biblical trans-
lations into different dialects. These were replaced, around the 7th
century, by translations into the two main dialects, Sahidic and
Bohairic. The standard translation in Bohairic was not completed
until the 9th century.

There are codices and fragments from the first stage, but there is
no edition of the Coptic Bible of the Old Testament comparable to
Horner’s for the New.” Nor is there a diachronic study on the Coptic
versions that takes into account the different dialects. In the light of

39 The standard edition for the New Testament is G. W. Horner, The Coptic

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 349

new texts published, the main problems to be resolved concern the
date of the versions, the matter of dialectal priority, the relationships
between private and official versions, the reconstruction of the Greek
exemplar used for translation and the insertion of the various trans-
lations into the different recensions or textual families of the LXX."°
In spite of the tasks that remain (in the production of true critical edi-
tions in the different dialects and in the correct assessment of the tex-
tual variants), there are some points where scholars are in agreement,
ie. that the Coptic Bible is based on Greek models that transmit
the LXX, not the Hebrew text, and that the Sahidic and Bohairic
versions are different and independent translations of the Greek. The
Akhmumic version, instead, is an interlinear translation of the Sahidic.

The Sahidic version of the Minor Prophets is closer to the Hebrew
than to the LXX. However it was not revised according to the
Hebrew but is based on a Greek Hebraising revision related to the
katye revision, to which belong also the quinta of the Hexapla and
the oldest link of which is to be found in the fragments of the ‘Twelve
Prophets found in Nahal Hever.*!

The bilingual codices are a peculiar form of textual transmission
in the Coptic Bible. Those from the first millennium are Greek-
Sahidic bilinguals which later would be replaced by Bohairic~Arabic
bilinguals.”

Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, 4 vols, London 1898-1905, and
Horner, The Coptic Version of the Naw Testament in the Southern Dialect, 7 vols, Oxford
1911-24,

Coptic scholars have chosen to edit individual manuscripts, sce H. Queckc, Das
Markusevangelium saidisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Ino.-Nr. 182 mit den Varianten
der Handschrift M 569, Barcelona 1972; Quecke, Das Lukasevangelium sahidisch, Barcelona
1977; H.-M. Schenke, Das Matthdius-Evangelium im mitteldgyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen,
Codex Scheide, Berlin 1981; G. Aranda Pérez, EI ewangelio de San Mateo en copto
sahidico, Vexto de M 569, Madrid 1984, and Aranda Pérez, El evangelio de San Marcos
én copto sakidico, Madrid 1988.

For the Old Testament, the edition of the Pentateuch is at an advanced stage
of preparation, sce M. K. H. Peeters, A Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch.
Vol. 5: Deuteronomy, Chico, Calif. 1983; Vol. J: Genesis, Atlanta, Ga. 1985; Vol. 2:
Exodus, Atlanta, Ga, 1986.

*” See 'T. Orlandi, “Coptic Literature”, The Roots of Egyptian Christianily, ed. B. A.
Pearson and J. E. Goehring, Philadelphia 1986, 51-81, pp. 53-55.

*' See chapter 10.

® See P. Nagel, “Old Testament, Coptic ‘Translations of”, The Coptic Encyclopedia.
Vol. 6, ed. A. S. Atiya, New York 1991, 1836-40, and B. J. Diebner and R. Kasser,
Hamburger Papyrus Bil. 1, Geneva 1989 with Song of Songs (Coptic), Lamentations
(Coptic) and Ecclesiastes (Greck and Coptic).

350 ‘THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

On the limitations of Coptic for reproducing Greek we can refer
to the perceptive studies by J. M. Plumley and M. K. H. Peters,
which are indispensable for correct use of these versions in the tex-
tual criticism of the LXX.*

The Armenian Version

Armenia was the first kingdom to accept Christianity as the official
religion, in 304, under Tiridates II. The translation of the Bible
into Armenian dates to the beginning of the 5th century. It was the
work of the Catholikos or chief of the Church Sahak, of the monk
and missionary Mesrop and of his disciples. With the support of the
king, Mesrop invented the Armenian alphabet of 36 letters which
gave rise to a cultural renaissance and the beginnings of literature
in Armenia precisely with the translation of the Bible, which ended
between 410 and 414.

This translation includes books held as apocryphal in other tra-
ditions, such as Joseph and Aseneth, the Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs and the Letter of the Corinthians to Paul and Paul’s third
letter to the Corinthians.

From internal study of this version it can be concluded that it
went through at least two stages: an initial translation (Arm 1), per-
haps followed by a preliminary revision, and a complete later revi-
sion or new translation (Arm 2). Although in its various stages the
translation was under the influence of the Greek and Syriac, it was
made principally from the Greek in the Lucianic and Hexaplaric
recensions. Ruth, | Samuel, Daniel and Sira were translated, appar-
ently from a Lucianic type of text influenced by Syriac. Text Arm
1 of Chronicles followed a Greek exemplar of Lucianic type for its
translation, whereas Arm 2 had a Hexaplaric-type text as its Vorlage.“*
The version of Genesis is based on the Hexaplaric recension; the
versions of Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel are strongly influenced by

® J. M. Plumley, “Limitations of Coptic (Sahidic) in Representing Greek”, The
Early Versions, 141-52, and M. K. H. Peters, “The Use of Coptic for Textual
Criticism of the Septuagint”, La Sepluaginia, 55-66.

“ See S, P. Cowe, “The Armenian Version”, N. Fernandez Marcos and J. R.
Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega HH. 1-2 Crénicas, Madrid 1996,
XLVHI-LV, and S. P, Cowe, “Ihe Two Armenian Versions of Chronicles: ‘Their
Origin and Translation Technique”, Reoue des Etudes Armeniens 22 (1990-91), 53-96.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 351

the Hexaplaric recension. In the book of Job this version is an
excellent testimony of the Origen recension."

Between the Sth and 8th centuries, Arm 2 underwent a gradual
revision to make it agree more closely with the Greek text of the
LXX.

The main collections of Armenian manuscripts are in the Mate-
nadaran library of Yerevan, in the Armenian Patriarchate of Jeru-
salem, and with the Mekitarist Fathers of Venice and Vienna. The
only complete edition of the Armenian Bible continues to be the
one by Y. Zohrab (Venice 1805) which became the standard Bible
of the Armenian Church. The Academy of Sciences of Yerevan and
the Matenadaran Library are preparing a critical edition of the Old
and New Testaments in Armenian.””

The Armenian version tends to be more literal and of high qual-
ity; hence its interest for textual criticism is increasing as the new
manuscripts are studied. On the phonetic, morphological and syn-
tactic limitations of Armenian for reproducing Greek and the appro-
priate use of Armenian in textual criticism of the LXX, the works
by E. F. Rhodes and C. Cox are indispensable.

The Georgian Version

The ancient name of Georgia is Iberia, and from it is derived the
name Jveron of the monastery on Mount Athos, at one time a Georgian
monastery. The Georgian language has no other cognate language
outside the Caucasus. It has neither the article nor different gen-
ders. The verb is polypersonal, i.c. within the same verbal form the

® See C. E. Gox, The Armenian Translation of Deuteronomy, Chico, Calif. 1981, 250,
and B. Johnson, Die armenische Bibeliibersetzung als hexaplarischer Zeuge im 1. Samuelbuch,
Lund 1968. According to 8, P. Cowe, Johnson’s conclusions are valid for the s
ond layer of the Armenian version (Arm 2), but for the first layer (Arm 1), repre-
sented by a small group of manuscripts, in 1 Samuel this version also follows a
Lucianic or Antiochene type of text, see 8. P. Cowe, “The Armenian Version”,
N. Fernandez Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, El lexto antioqueno de la Biblia griega. 1,
1-2 Samuel, Madrid 1989, LXXI-LXXIX.

“ For the Hexaplaric material of this version which has been preserved, sce
C. E. Cox, Hexaplaric Materials Preserved in the Armenian Version, SCS 21, Atlanta,
Ga. 1986, and Gox, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Armenia, SCS 42, Atlanta, Ga.
1996.

* See J. M. Alexanian, “Armenian Versions”, ABD 6, 805-808.

® E. F. Rhodes, “Limitations of Armenian in Representing Greek”, The Early
Versions, 171-81, and C. E. Cox, “The Use of the Armenian Version for the Textual
Criticism of the Septuagint”, La Septuaginta, 25-35.

352 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

morphemes can indicate the subject and the direct or indirect object
of the verb.

The oldest texts in Georgian are Christian. The oldest manuscripts
we have of the biblical version come from the 5th to 10th centuries.
Most of them are in fragments and transmitted on palimpsests. Of
the Old Testament, fragments of Genesis, Proverbs and Jeremiah
are preserved, all published, as well as fragments of Deuteronomy
and Judges, as yet unpublished. We do not know whether the trans-
lation covered the whole Old Testament. Of the pscudepigrapha,
the 4th book of Ezra is preserved in Georgian.

The translations were probably made from Armenian, but were
revised very soon according to a Greek text of Lucianic type, although
there are also traces of Hexaplaric influence. The fragments of gospels
were translated sometimes from Armenian and sometimes from Greek.
As yet we do not have a complete edition of the Old Testament.”

The contribution of M. Briére® can be consulted for the limita-
tions of Georgian for reflecting Greek.

The Ethiofne Version

The version into Ethiopic or. ge’ez was made from Greck between
the 4th and 6th centuries. The whole Old Testament has been pre-
served, although the books of Maccabees were translated later from
Latin. Ethiopic tradition does not distinguish between canonical and
extra-canonical books, since the biblical manuscripts contain various
pseudepigrapha such as the book of Enoch, the book of Jubilees, the
Ascension of Isaiah or the book of Paralipomena of Jeremiah (4
Baruch). It is certain that the carlicst translation into Ethiopic was
made from Greek. In most of the books it took as the base text a
text type very close to the Vatican manuscript and thus it is rela-
tively free of Hexaplaric influences. However, this ancient translation
was revised later according to other Greek manuscripts or follow-
ing Arabic manuscripts. On this point there is no agreement among
specialists.>!

* See S. P. Brock, “Bibelitbersetzungen. 1”, 204205, and J. N. Birdsall, “Georgian
Versions”, ABD 6, 810-13,

°° M. Briére, “Limitations of Georgian in Representing Greek”, The Karly Versions,
199-214.

*' See S. P. Brock, “Bibeliibersetzungen. I”, 206-207, and R. Zuurmond, “Ethiopic
Versions”, ABD 6, 808-10.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 353

There are no manuscripts of the Ethiopic Bible earlier than the
13th/14th centuries, and most of them are later than the 16th cen-
tury. A large part of the books of the Old Testament was edited by
A. Dillmann in the second half of the 19th century. In the same
century some critical editions of great value were published, such as
the ones by O. Lofgren for Daniel and the Twelve Prophets.”

For the phonetic, morphological and syntactic limitations of Ethio-
pic for adequately reproducing Greck, the article by J. Hofmann is
instructive.

The appearance of various Aramaic fragments of the book of
Enoch and of some Hebrew fragments of the book of Jubilees among
the documents from Qumran has led to new editions in Ethiopic of
these pseudepigrapha.*

The Syro-Hexaplaric Version
It is the translation into Syriac of the fifth column of Origen’s
Hexapla, the LXX corrected according to the Hebrew text from
other Jewish traditions and marked by obeluses, asterisks and other
diacritical signs. As the colophons of the manuscripts indicate, this
version was completed by bishops Paul of Tella (Mesopotamia) and
Thomas of Harkel (Syria) in the monastery of Enaton, near Alexandria,
where they had fled from the Arab invasion. The colophons to the
books of Kings, Twelve Prophets and Daniel show that the transla-
tion was made between 615 and 617.%°

Due to its uniform character and the Literal nature of the trans-
lation, as Rordam’s study showed,°’ it is a first-class tool for recover-
ing Origen’s Hexaplaric recension of the LXX and one of its principal
witnesses. It also contains several marginal notes with readings from
Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. In his classic work on Hexaplaric

2 ©. Lofgren, Die dthiopische Ubersetzung des Propheten Daniel, Paris 1927, and Lifgren,
Jona, Nahum... Mateachi éthiopisch, Uppsala 1930.

5% J. Hofmamn, “Limitations of Ethiopic in Representing Greek”, The Early Versions,
240-56.

* See M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2 vols, Oxford 1978 and J. C.
Vanderkam, The Book of Jubilees: Critical Text and Transtation, 2 vols, CSCO 510 and
514, Leuven 1989,

% See chapter 13.

536 See S. P. Brock, “Bibeliibersetzungen. I”, 185-89.

7 §. Rerdam, Dissertatio de regulis grammaticis quas secuius est Paulus Tellensis in veteri
testament ex graeco syriace vertendo: Libri Fudicum et Ruth secundum versionem syro-Hexaplarem,
Copenhagen 1859-61.

354 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

fragments,” Field provides retranslations into Greek of this material
from “the three”. The publication of new Hexaplaric material has
in general confirmed the correctness of F. Field’s retranslations.

There are many important manuscripts of this version. Apparently
there was an edition of the whole work in two volumes. Even in
the Renaissance period a manuscript with the first part of the Old
Testament was in circulation, the property of Andrés Masius, but it
disappeared after his death. In the 18th century, the second part of
this manuscript, with the rest of the Old Testament, came into the
possession of the Ambrosian Library of Milan, and A. M. Ceriani
published a photographic edition of it.* Since then new manuscripts
have appeared, some of which have been published.

The studies by S. P. Brock and M. J. Mulder®! are indispensable
for the limitations of Syriac to represent the Greek and the strange
translation techniques of the various books.

The Syro-Palestinian Version

It is a translation into the Aramaic of the Palestine Christians, which

uses the. Syriac script known as Estrangela. All the literature pre-

served in this dialect is completed by translations from Greek made

by the Aramaic-speaking Christian community of Palestine. This

community belonged to the Melchites who did not wish to follow
~ the doctrines of Nestorians or Monophysites.

3 F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1875.

3 AL M. Ceriani, Codex Syro-Hexaplaris phololithographice editus. Monumenta Sacra et
prophana VI, Milan 1874,

6 W. Baars, New Spro-Hexaplaric Texts. Ed. Commented upon and Compared with the
LXX, Leiden 1968; A. Védbus, Discoveries of Very Important Manuscript Sources for the
Syro-Hexapla: Contributions to the Research on the Septuagint, Stockholm 1970; Véébus,
‘The Hexapla and the Syro-Hexapla: Very Important Discoveries for Septuagint Research, Estocolmo
1971, and VéGbus, The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla: A Facsimile Edition
of a Midyat Ms. Discovered in 1964, CSCO 369, Leuven 1975; Véébus, The Book of
Asaiah in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla, A Facsimile Edition of Ms. St. Mark I in Jerusalem
with an Introduction, CSOC 449, Leuven 1983, and R. J. V. Hiebert, The “Sprohexaplaric”
Psalter. SCS 27, Adanta, Ga. 1989.

6S. P. Brock, “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek”, The arly Versions,
83-98, and M. J. Mulder, “The Use of the Peshitta in Textual Criticism”, La
Septuaginta, 37-53.

On the Peshitta there is an extensive and excellent bibliography. See the critical
edition being prepared by the Peshitta Institute in Leiden, the bibliography by
P. B. Dirksen, An Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta of the Old Testament, Leiden
1989, and the following monographs: P. B, Dirksen and M. J. Mulder (eds), ‘The

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 355

The manuscripts preserved of this version only contain fragments
of biblical books or extracts from lectionaries or other liturgical texts.
Most of them come from Sinai or the Cairo Genizah. The oldest
are palimpsests. The translation is usually dated to the 6th century.”

It has not seemed appropriate to include here the Arabic versions
of the Bible, in spite of their importance, as they are of mediaeval
origin and only a very small part of them, in use among the Copts,
was made directly from the LXX, although others are influenced
indirectly by Greek through Coptic. For an excellent study of cur-
rent research we refer to the article by K. Samir.®

2. Western Versions

The Latin Versions

In the initial stages of the expansion of Christianity to the West, the
usual language in the Mediterrancan basin was Greek. However,
very soon it was replaced by Latin; in North Africa already by the
2nd century, the LXX and the New Testament were translated into
that language. Tertullian (160-220) was able to use a Latin version,
and in the mid-3rd century, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, quotes
extensively in his works from a Latin version which had already been
revised and thus has a complex history behind it. The process of
successive revisions according to the various text forms in Greek
that were in circulation continued into the following centuries and
is one of the more specific characteristics of Latin translations before
Jerome’s translation. In some of these revisions there are even traces
of a tendency to bring it close to Hebrew. These Hebraisms of the
Old Latin led some specialists“ to think that the translators might

Peshitta: Its Early Text and History, Leiden 1988, and P. B. Dirksen and A. van der
Kooij (eds), The Peshitta as a Translation, Leiden 1995.

® "See S. P. Brock, “Bibeliibersetzungen. 1”, 18789; Brock, “The Palestinian
Syriac Version”, The Early Versions, 75-82; F, Schulthess, Lexicon Syropalaestinum, Berlin
1903; H. Duensing, Christlich-palistinisch-aramdische Texte und Fragmente nebst einer
Abhandlung iiber den Wert der paliistinischen Sepluaginta, Géttingen 1906, M. H. Goshen-
Gottstein and H, Shirun, The Bible in the Syropalestinian Version. [: Pentateuch and Prophets,
Jerusalem 1973, and M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom, “Christian Palimpsests from the
Cairo Geniza”, RHT 8 (1978), 109-32.

8K. Samir, “Old ‘Testament, Arabic Versions of the”, The Coptic Encyclopedia 6,
1827-36, pp. 1833-34. “

“* See D. S. Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina, Etudes sur les rap-
ports entre les traductions bibliques en langue romane des Fuifs au moyen dge et les anciennes

356 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

have been Jews. However, this theory has not been supported by
more recent research.®

Both for existing manuscripts and for quotations from the Fathers
it is clear that the text of this version is not a uniform text, but has
a large number of differing texts. Even so, it does not seem that
these are due to different translations of the same book since the
similarities are very numerous and very strange. Rather, these diver-
gences must be attributed to the constant process of revision that it
underwent following different Greck models, and to variations in
vocabulary due to the evolution of Latin in a very creative period.
Hence the witnesses of the Old Latin contain material from different
origins and of unequal value. In consequence, they should not be
used for textual criticism of the Bible without rigorous internal crit-
icism.®

The term “Old Latin” is used correctly for translations and revi-
sions before Jerome. Two text types are usually distinguished, one
African and the other European, with variations depending on where
the manuscripts came from. From its chronology, this version was
made from pre-Hexaplaric Greek models which differ markedly from
the text transmitted by the great uncials of the 4th and 5th cen-
turies. In the New Testament it is based on the Greek text of a
Western type, and in the Old Testament it follows a Greek text
closely related to the Antiochene text and carlicr than the historical
Lucian, called the proto-Lucianic.”

This version had enormous influence on the development of west-
ern Latin Christian vocabulary. Until the 7th century it was not
replaced by Jerome’s translation and also it was kept in those books
of the Vulgate for which Jerome had no Hebrew text available for
his translation (Wisdom, Sira, Baruch, Maccabees). In the book of
Psalms the situation is more complex. Together with Jerome’s trans-
lation (Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos), the Vulgate also transmits the Psalterium

versions, Paris 1925, and U. Gassuto, “The Jewish Translations of the Bible into
Latin and its Importance for the Study of the Greck and Aramaic Versions”, Biblical
and Oriental Studies 1, Jerusalem 1973, 285-99.

® See S. P. Brock, “Bibeliibersetzungen. I”, 177-78; P.-M. Bogaert, “Latin
Versions”, ABD 6, 799-803, and J. Gribomont, “Les plus anciennes traductions
latines”, BTT 2, 44-65.

® See N. Fernandez Marcos, Scribes and Transtators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the
Books of Rings, Leiden 1994, 41-87.

7 See chapter 14, pp. 233-36.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 35

Gallicanum, a revision of the ancient Latin versions on the basis of
the Hexaplaric recension of the LXX.
The main sources for study of the Old Latin are:

1. the oldest biblical manuscripts, some of them from the 5th cen-
tury;

2. the quotations in patristic literature stored in the card indices of
the Vetus Latina Institut of Beuron (Germany);”

3. the Vulgate bibles with a large amount of material from the Old
Latin;’!

4. the glosses or additions to Jerome’s translation in books such as
Samuel or Proverbs, in which the Vulgate is shorter that the LXX
and the Old Latin.”

The oldest layers of the Latin versions can attest text forms of great
value for restoring the LXX and can even be used to recover sore
readings that have disappeared from Greek manuscripts and go back
to a Hebrew text that is different from the Masoretic.”

The editions of the Old Latin are scattered in a range of publi-
cations, and Sabatier’s edition is still useful.* In 1949, the Vetus

® See B. Fischer, Vetus Latina I, Verzeichnis der Sigel fiir Handschriflen und Kirchenschrifisteller,
Fribourg Br. 1949, and P. Petitmengin, “Les plus anciens manuscrits de la Bible
latine”, BTT 2, 89-127.

” Sec H.-J. Frede, Kirchenschrifisteller. Verzeichnis und Sigel, 4th edn, Fribourg Br.
1995.

™ Like the first Alcala Bible (Madrid, Uniz, Complutense ms. 31), from the 10th
century, which transmits Old Latin texts for the books of ‘Tobit, Judith, Esther,
Maccabees, 2 Chronicles and Ruth, see R. Weber, Les anciennes versions latines du
deuxiéme lwre des Paralipoménes, Rome 1945, VIt-VIUL

® See J. Schildenberger, Die altlateinischen ‘Texte des Proverbien-Buches. Erster Teil: Die
alte Afrikanische Textgestalt, Beuron 1941.

For the glosses of the Old Latin transmitted in a family of Spanish manuscripts
of the Vulgate, see T. Ayuso Marazuela, La Vetus Latina Hispana. 2 El Octateuca,
Madrid 1967; J. Ziegler, Randnoten aus der Vetus Latina des Buches lob in spanischen
Vulgatabibeln, Munich 1980; C. Morano Rodriguez, Glosas marginales de Vetus Latina
en las Biblias Vulgatas espatiolas. 1-2 Samuel, Madrid 1989; A. Moreno Hernandez, Las
glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgalas espafiolas. 1-2 Reyes, Madrid 1992,
and J. M. Cajias Rei’llo, Glosas marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas espario-
las: 1-2 Macabeos, Madrid 2000. The edition and analysis of the remaining mar-
ginal notes for the Old Testament in Spanish Vulgate Bibles will soon be completed.

™ See J. Trebolle Barrera, “From the ‘Old Latin’ through the ‘Old Greek’ to
the ‘Old Hebrew’ (2 Kgs 10.23-25)", Textus 11 (1984), 17-36.

™ P. Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica, 3 vols,
Rheims 1743-49 (Reprint [Brepols], Turnhout 1991).

358 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Latina Institut of Beuron began the critical edition of this version,
which in recent years has been revitalised under the direction of
H.-J. Frede. In the Old Testament, complete editions of Genesis
(B. Fischer), Wisdom (W. Thiele), several fascicles of Sira (W. Thicle),
and the Song of Songs (E. Schulz-Fliigel) have appeared and Isaiah
(R. Gryson) is on the point of completion. Most of the New Testament
epistles have also been published, thanks to the work of H.-J. Frede,
W. Thiele, H. S. Eymann and U. Frohlich. As well as this editor-
ial work the Institute of Beuron has produced thirty-five monographs
on the history of the Latin Bible.”

For a critical appraisal of publications on the Latin versions the
bulletin that P.-M. Bogaert” periodically issues can be consulted. On
the linguistic limitations of Latin for reproducing Greek and the cor-
rect use of this version in text criticism, the comments by B. Fischer
and E. Ulrich” are very helpful.

The Gothic version
Philostorgius narrates that bishop Ulfilas (or Wulfila) translated the
whole bible into Gothic, including the Old Testament, except for
the books of Kings, since it would be unsuitable for the Goths, a
warrior people, whose warlike instincts needed to be restrained rather
than stimulated, to recount these battle stories.”* However, most of
the texts preserved in this language belong to the New Testament,
and more: than half of them to the gospels, the text of which has
been transmitted essentially in a single source, the famous Codex
Argenteus in the library of the university of Uppsala.

Of the Old Testament a scant ten pages, some words and num-
bers in Genesis and fragments of Nehemiah 5-7, have reached us.”

® See 42. Arbeitsbericht der Stiftung. 28. Bericht des Instituis, Beuron 1998.
%® P.M. Bogaert, “Bulletin de la Bible Latine (1955~73)”, supplement to RBén
74°78 (1964-74), and supplement to RBén 85-108 (1975-98).

7 See B. Fischer, “Limitations of Latin in Representing Greek”, The Early Versions,
262-374, and E. Ulrich, “Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation
of the Septuagint”, La Septuaginta, 67-80.

™ Hist. Ecc. IL, 5, in Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez, 2nd edn by F. Win-
kelmann, Berlin 1922, p. 18: xol th te GAAa, abtév énepedetto Kai ypoppdtov
adtoic oixeiwv ebpetic Katactés, petégpacev cig thy adtOv aviv tac ypapds
anédoac, nhiv ye 5h tv Baotlerdy, &te tHv pév coAgL@v iotopiav éxovoty, tod
5 Evovcg Svtog prkonorgLov Kai Seopévov WaAAOV xoAtvod Tig Eni thc LexaAs
Oppfic, GAA’ odyi tod npdg tadta napoEdvovtoc.

% See W. Streitberg, Die gotische Bibel, Heidelberg 1971.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 359

The references to a translation of the Psalms and of Ezra in ancient
documents is due, apparently to false interpretation.”

Our knowledge of Gothic, an Indo-European language no longer
used today and belonging to the Germanic group, derives almost
exclusively from biblical translations. Hence its importance as the
oldest cultural record we have of this language. Ulfilas created a new
alphabet using characters taken from the Greek, Latin and Runic
alphabets. The translation is very literal and uniform and reflects a
high degree of competence on the part of the translator and his co-
workers, who take great care in their choice of vocabulary. It was
made in about 383, based on the Greek text of an Antiochene or
Lucianic type, although in the New Testament it is also influenced
by the Old Latin. In fact, the preserved fragments of Nehemiah cor-
respond systematically to manuscripts 19 108 and 93, which in the
books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles have an Antiochene text.
Accordingly it is one of the oldest witnesses to the Antiochene text.

On the limitations of Gothic to translate Greek and its correct use
in text criticism, the work G. W. S. Friedrichsen*! can be consulted.

The Slavonic Version

Like all beginnings, the arrival of Christianity to the Slav peoples is
surrounded by legends and immersed-in shadow. Apparently, it was
the emperor Heracleus (575-641) who, without much success, made
the first efforts to evangelise these peoples in the first half of the 7th
century. In the 9th century there was another Byzantine mission to
these peoples of which we are better informed and it produced sur-
prising results among the Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats and Eastern Slavs. —
The evangelisation affected the bases of the oldest Slavonic-Christian
culture. The account of these facts has been transmitted in two
Slavonic sources, the Vita Constantin’ and the Vita Methodii, which, in
spite of defective transmission, contain reliable historical data.”
According to these sources, these two brothers, born in Thessalonica,
were responsible for the mission to the Slavs. Before leaving for

™ See J. N. Birdsall, “Gothic Versions”, ABD 6, 803-805, p. 804. Sce, for exam-
ple, the edition by H. C. de Gabelentz and J. Loebe, Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Testamenti
Versionis Gothicae Fragmenta quae supersunt 1, Leipzig 1843, 353-56.

8G. W. S. Friedrichsen, “Limitations of Gothic in Representing Greek”, The
Early Versions, 388-93,

® Sce B. M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the Naw Testament, 395-96.

360 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Moravia, Constantine, who later took the name of Cyril, designed
a thirty-cight-letter alphabet for the Slav script and began to trans-
late the gospels.® The translation of the Psalter is also attributed to
Cyril. After the death of Gyril (869), Methodius, with the help of
two or three priest-scribes, towards the end of the 9th century, com-
pleted the translation of the Old Testament, with the exception of
Maccabees, since Methodius died in 885.

It is not certain that they translated all the books of the Old
Testament. Besides, these original versions underwent many later
revisions and in some 15th century manuscripts which include the
whole bible, there are books that have been translated from the
Vulgate, not from the Greek.

Most of the version by Cyril and Methodius was lost early on and
only incomplete Psalters and fragments of gospels have reached us
in relatively ancient manuscripts of around 1000 cx." Some of these
older manuscripts use the Glagolithic script and not the. Cyrillic.

The Greek text used as the basis for the translation of the Old
Testament was like the text of the Lucianic recension. Some agrcc-
ments with Hebrew against Greek arc to be attributed to the influence
of the Hexaplaric recension of the LXX rather than to the transla-
tors knowing Hebrew. A large amount of apocryphal and para-
biblical literature has been preserved in ancient, Slavonic in a rich
manuscript tradition.”

On the: limitations of ancient Slavonic for correctly: translating
Greek, the contribution by H. G. Lunt” is basic.

8 There is no agreement among specialists on which type of alphabet Cyril
invented, the Glagolithic or the Cyrillic. The relationship between the alphabets is
also disputed. Today it is. thought that the Glagolithic was the first alphabet of
ancient Slavonic and that the Cyrillic alphabet is based on the Greek uncial script
of the 9th--10th centuries. Towards the end of the 9th century, the Cyrillic alpha-
bet was made official for ecclesiastical and secular use, see B. M. Metzger, The Karly
Versions of the New Testament, 401403,

™ The most important is the Psalter of Sinai, from the 9th century, in the
Glagolithic script, which contains Psalms 1-137, see M. Altbauer, Psallerium Sinaiticum:
An llth Century Glagolithic Manuscript from St Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, Skopje
1971. See also J. C. Tardanides, The Slavonic Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St
Catherines Monastery on Mount Sinai, Thessalonica 1988.

8S. P. Brock, “Bibeliibersetzungen. I”, 215-16. .

®5 See the monograph by-A. de Santos Otero cited in note 36, and E. Turdeanu,
Apocryphes staves et roumains de Ancien Testament, Leiden 1981.

A. G. Lunt, “Limitations of Old Church Slavonic in Representing Greck”,
The Early Versions, 431-42.

THE SEPTUAGINT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 361

A table of these versions of the LXX follows with an approximate
date for each version. Note that I indicate the date of the oldest
translation known for the language in question, not the date of later
revisions or translations.

Coptic (3rd century)

Armenian (5th century)
ZEEE Georgian (5th century)
cies (4th century)

Eastern

Syro-Palestinian (6th century)
Syro-Hexapla (7th century)
Versions of the
Septuagint
Latin (2nd century)
Gothic (4th century)
Ancient Slavonic (9th century)

Western

SELECT BrsLioGRAPHY

Albert, M., et al., Cristianismes orientaux, Introduction a Vétude des langues et des littératures,
Paris 1993.

Altaner, B., and A. Stuiber, Patrologie. Leben, Schrifien und Lehre der Kirchenviiter, Fribourg
Br. 1980; 10-13.

Assfalg, J., and P. Kriiger, Petit Dictionnaire de VOnent Chrétien, Brepols 1991 (espe-
cially, the articles “langue” and “littérature”).

Bardy, G., La question des langues dans I’Eglise ancienne. Tome I, Paris 1948.

Beckwith, R. T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background
in Early Judaism, London 1985.

Brock, S. P., “Bibeliibersetzungen I. Altes Testament”. TRE 6, 1980, 172-216.

Burton-Christie, D., The Word in the Desert; Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early
Christian Monasticism, Oxtord 1993.

Charlesworth, J. H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement, Chico,
Calif. 1981.

Denis, A.-M., Introduction aux Pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament, Leiden 1970.

Dorival, G., “La Septante dans le monde chrétien. Canon et versions”. Harl et al.,
La Bible grecque des Seplante, 1988, 32i—-34.
~— et al., “Versions anciennes de la Bible”. Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible,
‘Turnhout 1987, 1302-25,

Fernandez Marcos, N., “En torno al estudio del griego de los critianos”. Emerita 41
(1973), 45-56.

—-—"~, (ed), La Septuaginta, 1984, 15-80.

Gribomont, J., “Las traducciones biblicas”. Patrologia IIT. La edad de oro de la literatura
patristica latina, ed. J. Quasten and A. di Berardino, Madrid 1981, 231-37.
Hanson, R. P. C., “Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church”. Cambridge History of the

Bible I, 412-53.
Harl, M., “La Septante chez les Péres grecs ct dans la vie des Chrétiens”. Harl
et al., La Bible grecque des Septante, 1988, 290-320.

362 THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

——-, “La Septante et la pluralité textuelle des Ecritures. Le temoignage des Péres
Grecs”. Naissance de la méthode critique. Colloque du centenaire de Ecole Biblique et
archéologie frangaise de Férusalem, Paris 1992, 231-43 (= La langue de Japhet 253-66).

-—, “Le renouvellement du lexique des Septante d’aprés le temoignage des
recensions, révisions et commentaires grecs anciens”. VI Congress of the IOSCS,

1991, 239-59 (= La langue de Japhet 145-65).

~ rigéne et les interprétations patristiques grecques de fobscurité biblique”.

VC 36 (1982), 334-71.

, “Remarques sur la langue des chrétiens, 4 propos du Patristic Greek Lexicon”.
JTS 4 (1963), 406-20 (= La langue de Japhet 169~82).
~~, “Y_a-t-il une influence du ‘grec biblique’ sur la langue spirituelle des chré-
tiens?”. La Bible et les Péres, Strasbourg 1971, 243-63 (= La langue de Japhet,
183-202).

Kaestli, J.-D., and O. Wermilinger (eds), Ze Canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation
et son fustotre, Geneva 1984, (03-211.

Koester, H., Jniroduction to the New Testament. Volume 2: History and Literature of Early
Christianity, Berlin-New York 1987.

Lamb, J. A., “The Place of the Bible in the Liturgy”. Cambridge History of the Bible
I, 563-86.

Metzger, B. M., The Early Versions of ihe New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and
Limitation, Oxford 1977.

Rabin, Ch., “Cultural Aspects of Bible Translation”. Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed.
M. E. Stone, Jerusalem 1976, 35-49.

Simonetti, M., La letteratura cristiana antica greca e latina, Florence-Milan 1969.

Swete, H. B., An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 462-77.

Trebolie, J., The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, Leiden—-New York-Kéln 1998,
348-65 and 513-44.

Various Authors, “Versions, Ancient”. ABD 6, New York 1992, 787-813.

Vielhauer, P., Geschichie der urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin—New York 1975.

Wigtil, D. N., “Lhe Independent Valuc of Ancient Religious Translations”. ANRW
IL16, 3, 1986, 2052-66.

More information about the various versions of the Septuagint can be found in
SMS 243-68, CB 144-94 and BS 281-306.

GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

apocrypha

Aramaism

Aristarchian (signs)

asterisk

begadkefat

Caraites

catena

deuterocanonical
Dodekapropheton

Estrangela

Euhemerism

in Catholic terminology it denotes books of the Old
and New Testaments not included in the canon of
inspired books. For Protestants instead it refers to the
biblical books not included in the Hebrew canon,
although they are in the Septuagint. The latter are
called deuterocanonical by Catholics.

cf. Semitism.

diacritical signs used in Alexandrian philology (i.c. by
Aristarchus) in the editions of the Greek classics.
Adopted by Origen in editing his Hexapla; cf. aster-
isk and obelus.

a sign used in the Hexapla to mark passages found in
Hebrew but missing from the Septuagint translation.
Origen included them in the text, taking them from
other translators.

a siglum formed from the six Hebrew consonants that
can be either occlusive or fricative.

or followers of the Bible, a Jewish sect founded in the
9th century ce. Their aim was to follow the Bible in
its teachings and religious opinions with the exclusion
of traditional rabbinic laws.

a literary form of early Christianity which consists in
tacking together testimonies from the Fathers of the
Church around a particular book or biblical passage;
see chapter 19.

see apocrypha.
Greek title of the book of the Twelve Minor Prophets.

the name of an early form of Syriac script. Later it
would develop into two different forms Nestorian, from
the school of Nisibe and serta, belonging to the school
of Edessa and the Western Syrians.

historical explanation of the origin of religion accord-
ing to which the gods were famous men of the past
elevated to divine status for their acts and inventions
on behalf of humankind.

364

Gaonic

Genizah

Hoflaré

Haggadé

Halaké
haplography

Hebraism
iufil
hireq

hofal
hdlem

homoioteleuton

Indo-European

iotacism

(revision)

Masoretic (text)
Midrash

GLOSSARY

related to the gé‘6nim, a title given to heads of the Baby-
lonian academies of Sura and Pumbedita. By means of
their interpretation of the Mishnah the Amra‘m produced
the Talmud and the gé‘énim undertook to interpret it.

store, graveyard or repository of books withdrawn from
liturgical use in the synagogue. So far the most important
known is the one in Old Cairo, discovered in the 19th
century which held large quantities of Hebrew manuscripts.

second reading in the synagogue liturgy after the Law,
taken from the prophetic books.

every type of exegesis of the scriptures that is not Halaka.
Tt includes all parts of ancient rabbinic literature that are
not strictly legal.

set of doctrines or rules that Jews follow in daily life.
Sometimes it denotes legal parts of Jewish tradition,

a mistake made by not writing a letter or group of sim-
ilar letters which should be repeated.

see Semitism,

the causative form of the Hebrew verb.
Hebrew vowel with an i sound.

the causative-passive form of the Hebrew verb.
Hebrew vowel with an o sound.

similarity between the ends of two words close together
in a text, or of two sentences or clauses.

a linguistic stock or trunk from which comes the group
comprising the following languages and language groups:
Hittite, Tokharian, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Baltic, Slavonic,
Albanian, Greek, Italic (Latin and Osco-Umbrian) and
Celtic.

characteristic process of the vocalic system of late Greek
which has combined in the i-sound (iota) several vowels
and diphthongs of classical Greek (n, v, et, 01).

revision of the Septuagint text to make it closer to the
Hebrew text current in Ist century cE Palestine. The name
comes from the peculiar translation of Hebrew gam =
“also” by the Greek particle. Cf proto-Theodotion.

sec lexlus receptus.

type of exegesis of scripture opposed to peSat or literal
interpretation, which tries to examine all aspects of the

Mishnah

obelus

Old Latin

palaco-Hebrew

palimpsest

patah

peser

piel

Pre-Masoretic

pre-recensional

Prophets

proto-Lucianic

GLOSSARY 365

sacred text and to extract the corresponding interpreta-
tion. When applied to the legal sections of scripture it is
called halakhic midrash. When applied to the rest of the
Bible to interpret it or explain it in a moralising or edi-
fying way it is called hageadic midrash.

denotes both the instruction, teaching and learning of tra-
dition and the content of such instruction, i.e. traditional

Jewish doctrine as it developed up to the beginning of the

3rd century cr. It is frequently applied to orally trans-
mitted law as against the Miqra’, the Law both written
and read.

sign of something spurious. Origen used it to mark words
or passages that were in the Septuagint but missing from
the corresponding Hebrew text.

translation of the Septuagint into Latin, 2nd century cE.

the oldest form we have of the Hebrew script before the
square script. The shift from the palaco-Hebrew script to
the square script occurred from the 4th to 2nd centuries
BcE although we cannot be more precise about the date.

ancient manuscript that has been erased and re-used and
so preserves traces of previous writing.

Hebrew vowel with an a@ sound

exegetical technique used in the Qumran writings and the
New Testament, which consists of applying individual say-
ings of the past to contemporary events.

intensive form of the Hebrew verb.

Hebrew text before the period of vocalisation carried out
by the Masoretes or transmitters from the 6th century cE.

normally applied to the text of the Septuagint before the
3rd century cE, i.e. before it was revised by the three
recensions mentioned by Jerome, namely, those by Origen,
Lucian and Hesychius.

in the Hebrew Bible denotes a collection of writings that
includes Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and
Kings) and Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezckicl and
the Twelve Minor Prophets).

revision of the Old Septuagint to conform to the Hebrew
text current in Ist century Bor Palestine, probably together
with a stylistic revision. In Samuel—Kings it corresponds
to one of the oldest layers, even though already revised,
of the Antiochene text.

366

proto-Masoretic

Proto-Theodotion

Pseudepigraphic

qames

runic

segil

segholate

Semitism

Septuagint(aljism

Syro-Hexapla

Talmud

Targum

Tetragrammaton

GLOSSARY

Hebrew text that is a forerunner or predecessor of the
Masoretic text but in the period of textual pluralism, c.
300 Bce-100 cE.

an early revision of the Septuagint equated by many spe~
cialists with the xaiye revision. Some accept that it was
used later by the historical Theodotion.

a writing with a theme more or less related to the Old
Testament, excluded from the canon of inspired books
and chronologically set generally between the two
Testaments.

Hebrew vowel with an a/o sound.

the name of characters used for writing by the ancient
Scandinavians.

Hebrew vowel with an e sound.

triliteral Hebrew noun generally vocalized with a dou-
ble segél.

form of biblical Greek that is only explained by the
influence of the underlying Semitic text. It can be a
Hebraism or an Aramaism, depending on whether Hebrew
or Aramaic is the original language being translated.

form of biblical Greek caused by the influence of the
Septuagint on later biblical writings and in particular on
the New Testament.

translation into Syriac of the fifth column of the Hexapla
carried out in the 7th century ce. It preserves the
Hexaplaric diacritic signs and marginal notes from other
Jewish translators.

name of one of two Jewish works prepared by the schools
of Palestine (Jerusalem Talmud) and of Babylonia (Baby-
lonian Talmud) from the 3rd to the 5th centuries cr. It
is generally used for the whole corpus of this literature
and marks the culmination of the writings of Jewish tra-
dition. It includes the Mishnah and the commentary on
it called Gemara.

although literally it means ‘translation, interpretation’, it
has been restricted to denote translation of the Bible into
Aramaic. The plural is Targumim or 'Targums.

God’s name in Hebrew, so called because it comprises
four letters (YHWH).

GLOSSARY 367

textual pluralism variety of Hebrew texts which circulated before the uni-

lexlus receplus

the three

Theocrasia

Tiggiiné séferim

Torah
Tosefta’

Vetus Latina
Vorlage
Writings, the

Yém kipptir

fying tendency that is evident towards the end of the Ist
century cE (Synod of Yamnia).

text transmitted as official by the Masoretes and printed
in the Hebrew Bibles until the Leningrad manuscript
B19a began to be published.

conventional name for the more recent translators of the
Bible into Greek, i.e. Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion

another name for syncretism, a kind of universal reli-
giosity which arose in the Hellenistic period from con-
fusing or equating various deities as manifestations of a
single numen.

corrections by the Hebrew scribes traditionally applied
to eighteen passages, modified, apparently, to remove
bad-sounding expressions from the biblical text.

Hebrew name for the Pentateuch or the five books of
the Law.

collection of treatises on topics of traditional Jewish Law
studied more extensively than in the Mishnah.

See Old Latin.

said of any text used as the basis for a translation. It is
generally used for the Hebrew text underlying the trans-
lation of the Septuagint.

Heb. ‘tabi, the title used to denote in the Hebrew Bible
books not included in the Law and the Prophets.

day of atonement, an important feast in the Jewish cal-
endar celebrated on the 10th of Tishri (September—
October) and dedicated to begging reconciliation and
pardon from God and one’s fellow. Among other prac-
tices and rites on this day, the book of Jonah is read as
the Hajtara in the synagogue.

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Abel, F. M10 n. 31, 16

Abrahams, J. 172

Abramowski, R. 283 n. 38

Ackroyd, P.R. 74 n. 29

Agjmelaeus, A. 26, n. 33, 30, 31,
78 n. 39, 82 n. 49, 83, 100, 100
n. 57, 105

Aféda Béghi, E. 186

Aland, B. 8 n. 20

Aland, K. 7 n. 16, 8 n. 20, 54 n. 1,

191 nn. 24, 192 n. 5, 200 n. 32,

202, 268 n. 45

Alberbach, M. 263 n. 20

Albright, W. F. 83

Alexanian, J. M. 351 n. 47

Alfonsi, L. 285

Allenbach, J. 273

Ally, Z 202

Alonso Diaz, J 339 n. 6

Altaner, B. 204 n. 1, 223 n. 3, 282
n. 34, 285, 361

Altbauer M. 360 n. 84

Amigo, L. 186

Amir, Y. 307 n. 8

Amstutz, J. 12 n. 38

Andrews, H.T. 51

Aptowitzer, V. 51

Aranda Pérez G. 280 n. 26, 349 n. 39

Archer, G. L. 323 n. 11, 335

Amaldez R. 264, 264 n. 26, 271

Armim M. 12, 12 n. 41

Ashby, G. W. 283 n. 37

Assfalg, J. 361

Astour, M. C. 19, 19 nn. 3-4, 30

Atiya, A. 5S. 349 n. 42

Attridge, H.W. 2L1 n. 26, 286

Audet, J. P. 270, 270 n. 55, 271

Ayuso Marazuela T. 357 n. 72

Baars, W. 95 n. 40, 101 n. 61, 115,
115 n. 34, 137, 138 n. 60, 153,
211 n, 28, 321 n. 4, 354 n.60

Babcock, W. 8. 340 n, 12

Bammel, C. P. 220

Barc, B. 105

Bardenhewer, O.
285

125 n. 6, 274 n. 2,

Bardy, G. 30, 162, 162, n. 35, 172,
205, 206 n. 7, 220, 236, 276, 276
n. B10, 278 n. 14, 282, 285, 346,
361

Rarenos, K. 128

Barr 16, 16 n. 56, 25 n, 28, 30,

78 n. 39, 116, 116 nn, 39-40, 118
n. 49, 121-122, 203, 217 n. 51, 220,
220, 22 n. 56, 317 n, 5, 329, 329
n. 31. 335

Barret, C. K. 326 n. 24, 335

Bartelink, G. J. M. 5 n. 9, 274 n. 2,
344, 345 un. 29-30 ;

Barthélemy, D. 21 n. 1, 22 n. 13, 30,
54, 54 n. 1, 56 n. 11, 63, 65 n, 38,
66, 69, 71, 71 nn. 19-20, 72, 72
n. 24, 77 nn. 36-37, 79 n. 43, 82
n. 51, 83, 89 n. 14, 91, 91 nn. 21-22,
97 n. 46, 98 n. 47, 109 n. 2, £10,
115, 115 n. 38, 119, 119 on.
50-51, 120 n. 55, 121, 123, 123
n, 2, 125 n. 6, 126 n. 13, 129, 129
n. 28, 134, 136 n. 52, 137, 137 n. 58,
140, 142, 142 n. 4, 143 n. 5, 144,
145, 145 n. 15, mn. 17, 146, 147,
148, 148 n. 25, 149, 150, 150 nn.
29-30, 151, 151 nn. 34~35, 152,
153, 154, 157, 158, 158 n. 12, 172,
192, 197, 202, 207, 210, 212 n. 33,
220, 225, 234, 234 n. 59, 235, 236,
247, 248, 248 nn. 3, 7, 249, 250,
256-57, 261, 265-66, 305, 325

Baskin, J. R. 286

Bauer, J. B. 274 n. 3, 286

Bauer, W. 8, 246

Baumgiartel F. 22 n, 15

Baumgartner, W. 315

Baumstark A. 325 n. 21, 335

Bayer, E. 42 n. 30

Beale, G. K. 330 nn. 35-36, 335

Beattie, D. R. G. 221

Beavis, M. A. L. 51

Beckwith, R.T. 361

Begg, C. 265 n. 28, 271

Behm, J. 3 n. 2

Belléli 180, 180 n. 32, 182, 182 nn.
38-39, 183-84, 185 n. 49, 186.

Benoit, A. 270 n. 54, 272, 316 n. 42

370

Benoit, P. 268 n. 46, 272

Bentzen, A. 23 n. 18

Benvéniste, E. 63 n. 31

Berardino, A. di 286, 361

Berger, S. 338 n. 1

Bertini, U. 300

Bertram, G. 29 n. 40, 306, 311, 311
n. 20, 313, 315, 318, 335

Bertrand, D. A. 273

Best, E. 273

Beuken, W. A. M. 60 n. 24, 80
n. 46, 143 n. 8, 318

Beuter, PA. 340 n. 12

Beyer, K. 12, 12 n. 36

Biberstein, K. 153

Bickermann, E. J. #8 n. 2, 30, 41,
51, 63, 195, 261 n. 10

Bidez, J. 342 n. 17, 358 n. 78

Bietenhard, H. 220

Billerbeck, P. 321, 321 n. 5

Binder, G. 245 n. 35

Biondi, A. 268 n. 49

Birdsall, J. N. 352 n. 49, 359 n. 80

Black, M. 11 n. 33, 12, 12 n. 37,
260 n. 6 273, 321 n. 4, 333 n. 46,
336

Blanchetiére, F. 309 n. 15 318

Blass, F. 333 n. 46

Blau, L. 215 n. 44

Bleck, F. 327

Bloch, R. 102 n. 64, 172

Blondheim,.D. S. 177, 177 nn. 15-16,
183, 183 n. 45, 184, 185 nn. 49, 51,
186, 355 n. 64

Bludau, A. 335

Boccaccini, G. 51

Bodine, W. R. 95, 95 n. 39, 103,
147 n. 23, 153, 153 n. 40, 244,
244 n. 34

Boehl, E. 272

Bogaert, P. M. 76 n. 35, 81, 81
n, 48, 82 n. 53, 92, 92 n. 24, 103,
202, 356 n. 65, 358, 358 n. 76

Boismard, M. E. 259, 259 n. 4,
272

Boman, T. 29 n. 40, 317 n. 46

Bonhoeffer, A. 12, 12 n. 40

Bousset, W. 246, 281 n. 27, 305,
305 n. 1, 308 n. 11, 311, 311
n, 21, 318

Bowker, J. 105

Bratsiotis, N. P. 29 n. 40, 317 n. 46,
318

Bremmer, J. N. 84

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Briére, M. 352, 352 n. 50

Brock, S. P. 18 n. 2, 30, 85 n. 1,
203, 206, 206 n. 10, 214, 214
n. 41, 220, 234, 234 n. 60, 235,
235 n. 64, 236, 249 n. 12, 256, 342
n. 16, 352 n. 49, 352 n. 51, 353
n. 56, 354, 354 n. 61, 355 n. 62,
356 n. 65, 360 n. 85, 361

Brockington, L. H. 87, 87 n. 4, 103

Brodie, T. L. 334, 334 n. 52, 335

Bronno, E. 217 n. 5), 219, 219
n. 54, 220, 220 n. 57, 221

Brooke, A. E. 93, 93 n. 28, 127, 145,
167 n. 59, 175, 183, 200, 200
n. 34, 226 n. 19, 228, 249

Broshi, M. 94 n. 33

Brown, D. 276 n. 10

Brown, J. P. 19 n. 3, 30, 105

Browning, R. 177 n. 17, 180 n. 30,
182 n. 36, 186

Brown, S. 193 n. 13

Bruce, F. F. 103

Burch, V. 327

Burkitt, F.C. 9, 113, 113 nn. 21--22,
115, 121, 157 n. 7, 158, 158 n. 14,
172, 211, 211 n. 30, 233, 233
n. 49, 340 n. 12

Burney, C. F. 9°10

Burrows , M. 9

Burton-Christie, D. 276 n. 11, 361,
339 n. 6

Busto Saiz, J. R. 89 n. 14, 93 n. 29,
103, 121, 125, 125 n, 11, 126 n. 15,
129, 129 n, 24, 129 n. 25, 130
n. 29, 131, 131 nn. 31-32, 137,
137 n. 58, 139 n. 69, 140, 153, 201
n. 39, 227 n. 26, 229 n. 36,
236-237, 271 n. 59, 278 n. 16, 279
n. 19, 285 n. 47, 350 n. 44, 351 n. 45

Butler, GC. 125 n. 7

Gadbury, H. J. 9

Gaird, G. B. 25 n. 28

Callahan, A.D, 331, 331 nn. 37-38,
334 n. 52, 335

Caloz, M. 220

Campenhausen, H. F. von 342 n. 20

Cafias Reillo, J. M. 357 n. 72

Cannon, W. W. 133, 133 n. 42

Cantera, F. 216 n. 50, 249 n. 8, 311
n. 22

Cantera, J.

Capelle, P.
n. 51

236
127, 127 n. 20, 140, 233

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Garson, D. A, 327 n. 26, 335

Casetti, P. 22 n. 13, 30

Casparus, W. 6 n. 12

Cassuto, U. 185 n. 51, 356 n. 64

Cavallo, G. 195, 195 n. 18, 202

Ceriani, AM. 227, 232, 232 n. 47,
236 n. 66, 241, 241 n. 16, 354,
354 n. 59

Chadwick, H. 269 n, 50, 277 n, 12

Charles, R. H. 51, 101 n. 59, 263,
263 n. 22

Charlesworth, J. H. 52, 264 n. 22,
273, 321 n. 3, 347 n, 36, 361

Chatelain, M. E. 140

Chaze, M. 186

Ghiesa, B. 75, 75 n. 32, 83
Chirichigno, G. 323 n. 11, 335
Chomsky, N. 27

Chouraqui, A. 311 n, 22

Christ, W. 126 n. 12, 281 n. 29,

313, 321, 328, 333, 342

ristlich, B. 276 n. 7, 279 n, 22,

355 n. 62

urgin, P. 87, 87 n. 7, 103

larke, W. K. L. 35

Cohen, N. G. 51

Collado Bertomeu, V.

Collart, P. 268

Cook, J. 30, 315 n. 37, 318

Cooper, C. M. 153

Comill, C. H. 69, 70 n. 12, 241,
241 n. 15

Corriente, F. 220 n. 57

Coste, J. 30

Cowe, 8. P. 237, 350 n. 44, 351 n. 45

Cox, C.E. 153, 220, 244, 244 n. 32,
246, 351, 351 nn, 45-46, 48

Cremer, H. 3 n, |

Crénert, W. 200 n. 31, 201

Cross, FP. L. 54 n. 1, 83

Cross, F. M. 56 n. 10, 74, 74 n. 28,

30, 83, 103 n. 68, 234 n. 57, 249

n. 9, 251 n, 19, 256

Qaq006€80

56 n. 10

Dahse, J. 227, 237, 227 n. 23

Dalman, G. 9, 9 n. 23, 333 nn.
46-49, 334

Daniel, S. 26, 26 n. 31, 87 n. 6,
121, 317 n, 43, 318

Daniélou, J. 220, 269 n. 53, 272

Danon, A. 182, 182 n. 40, 186

Davies, W. D. 25 n. 28, 322 n. 6,
335

Deboys, D. G. 158, 158 n. 15, 172

371

Debrunner, A. 16

Debruyne, D. 338 n. 1

Declerck, J. 121

Deconinck, J. 237, 283 n. 38, 289
n. 5, 291, 291 n. 7, 294, 294 n. 14,
298, 298 n. 25, 300

Deissmann, A. 3, 7, 7 n. 18, 7 1. 19,
8-9, L]-13, 16-17, 40, 59 n. 20,
114 n. 24, 306, 306 n. 3, 308 n. 9,
322, 344

Delcor, M. 91, 91 n. 20, 101 n. 59,
103

Delekat, L. 87, 87 n. 5, 103

Delitzsch, F. 179, 179 n. 25, 183

Delling, G. 51, 262 n. 13, 307 nn.
7-8, 317 n. 47, 318, 321 nn. 3-5

Denis, A. M. 260 n. 6, 261 n. 10,
347 n. 36, 361

Devreesse R. 157 n. 6, 161 n. 27,
170, 170 n. 74, 171, 180 n. 29,
194, 196 n. 21, 196 n. 23, 202, 224
n. 11, 282 n. 36, 283 n. 38, 284
n. 44, 286, 288 n. 2, 294, 294 n. 15,
295 n. 16, 296-297, 297 n. 22, 300

Diaz, J. R. 167 n. 62, 237, 339 n. 6

Diebner, B. J. 349 n. 42

Dieterich, K. 177 n. 17

Dieu, L. 30, 233, 233 n. 50, 237

Diez Macho, A. 51, 85 n. 1, 86 n. 3,
174, 86, 93 n. 30, 101, 101 nn. 61-62,
105, 264 n. 22, 321 n. 4

Dillmann, A. 353

Dirksen, P. B. 354 n. 61

Dittmar, W. 323, 323 n. Il, 335

Dobschiitz, E. von, 240 n. 7

Dodd, G. H. 306, 311 n. 24, 312
n. 26, 317 n. 46, 318, 327

Déderlein, J. C. 164

Dolger, F. 202

Dorival, G. 50-51, 67 n. |, 63 nn. 31,
33, 64 n, 34, 66-67, 115 n. 35,
220, 289, 274 n. 2, 290 n. 6, 291,
292 n. 8, 294 n. 15, 295 n. 9,
295-96, 300, 361, 339 n. 7, 340
n. 10, 342, nn. 18, 21, 343 n, 22

Dorrie, H. 197 n, 24, 202, 225
n. 12, 226, 241 n. 21, 275
n. 5, 276 nn, 7-10, 276 nn. 22

Dérries, H. 275 n. 5, 276 nn. 710,
279 n. 22, 286

Doutreleau, L. 245 n. 35,
286

Dreyer, O. 275 n. 4

Driver, 5. R. 69 n. 12

372 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Drusivs, J. 5 121-122, 127, 127 n. 18, 128, 128
Dubarle, A. M. 332 n. 43 n. 21, 133 n. 42, 140, 146, 147,
Duensing, H. 355 n. 62 153, 155, 157, 157 nn. 8-10, 159,
Dupont-Sommer, A. 264 n. 22 159 an. 16, 20, 161, 161 n. 29, 162
Duprez, A. 310 n. 19 n. 33, 163, 164, 164 n. 46, 165,
Durham, D. B. 12, 12 n. 39, 262 165 n. 51, 167, 167 n. 60, 171
n. 13 n. 78, 172, 173, 206 n. 12, 210,
Duval, Y-M. 280 n. 25 210 nn. 23-24, 211 n. 27, 212, 214,
214 n. 39, 220, 225, 225 n. 14,
Eichhorn, J. 164 227, 295, 354, 354 n. 58
Eichrodt, W. 66 Finn, A. H. 100
Eissfeldt, O. 66, 134 n. 45, 215, 221, Fischer, B. 237, 357 n. 69, 358, 358
n. 42 n. 77
Eliyah Fabian, M. ben 182 Fitmyer, J. A. 94 n. 33, 192 n. 5,
Elhiott, C. J. 205 280 n. 26, 320 n. 1, 325 n. 19,
Elliot, J. K. 256 336, 331, 331 n. 40
Ellis, E. E. 328 n. 30, 329, 331, 331 Flashar , M. 317 n. 46, 318
n. 41, 336 Flusser, D. 307 n. 6
Emerton, J. A. 81 n. 48, 187, 216, Foakes, F. J. 20 n. 8
216 nn, 47, 49, 217, 221 Follieri, H. 281 n. 29
Engel, H. 103, 153 Forster, R. 128 n. 22
Erasmus, D, 21 n. 12 Frankel, D. 70 n. 14, 102 n. 65,
Eshel, E. 94 n. 33 177, 177 n. 14, 184 n. 47, 186,
Estin, G. 357 n. 68 305 n. I
Ettinger, G. H. 281 n. 32 Frankel, Z. 30, 70, 102, 305, 313
Evans, C. A. 273, 320 n. 2 Frankl, P. F. 183, 183 n. 44
Evans, C. F. 74 n. 29 Fraser, P, M. 36 n. 1
Eymann, H. 8. 358 Frede, H. J. 187, 237, 357 n. 70, 358

Freed, E. D. 325, 325 n. 21, 336
Faulhaber, M. 299, 299 nn. 26-27, Freudenthal, J. 51, 183, 183 n. 44,

300 260, 260 n. 8, 261 n. 10
Fedalto, G. 186 Frey, J. B. 173, 267 n. 38, 325 n. 19
Feine, P. 3 n. 2 Friedrichsen, G. W. 8. 359, 359
Feissel, D. 267, 267 nn. 39, 41, n, 81

272 Fritsch, Ch. T. 26, 85 n. 1, 202, 313,
Feldman, t. H. 318, 321 n. 3 318
Fernandez Marcos, N. 5 n. 9, 14 Frohlich, U. 358

n. 50, 20 n. 8, 25 n. 28, 51, 56 Fuks, A. 267 n. 38

n. 10, 60 n. 24, 73 n. 26, 78 First, J. 186

n. 40, 80 n. 46, 83, 95 n. 41, 96

n, 42, 104, 111, 137 n. 56, 138 Gabelentz, H. C. de 359 n. 80

n. 62, 307 nn. 38-39, 316-17 Gall, A. F. 167 n. 58

n. 44, 318, 322, 328 n. 30, Garcia Martinez, F. 84, 269 n. 51,

334 n, 52, 336, 339, 345 280 n. 26

n. 31, 345 n. 32, 350, 351 n. 45, Garcia Yebra, V. 27 n. 34

356 n. 66, 361 Gard, D. H. 312 n. 28, 313, 318
Fernandez-Galiano, M. 252 n. 20 Gaster, M. 51, 58, 58 n. 17, 66
Festugiére, A. 336 Gebhardt, O. 179, 183, 186
Fichtner, J. 134, 134 n. 44, 262 Geerard, M. 271 n. 57, 290 n. 6,

n. 15, 272 298 n. 24, 300
Fiedler, P. 334 n. 51, 336 Geficken, J. 264 n. 23

Field, F. 11 n. Li, 113, 113 n. 19, Gehman, H. S. 11 n. 34, 16, 64,
115 n. 36, 118 n. 49, 119, 119 «69, 69 n. 9, 96 n. 44, 199 n. 30,
nn. 52-53, 120, 120 n. 54, 202, 246

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Geiger, A. 123, 123 n. 1, 132, 132
n. 37, 140

Geissen, A. 144 n. 10

Gentry, P. 248, 248 nn. 2, 6, 250

n, 14, 256
Georgius, C. S. 5
Gerleman, G.
Gesché, A. 245 n. 35
Ghellinck, J. de 286
Gignac, F.T. 7 n. 16, 12 n. 36
Gil, L. 4 n. 4, 13 n. 45, 138, 138
n. 64, 140, 153
Gil Ulecia, A. 121
Ginsburger, M. 221, 215 n. 44
Ginzberg, L. 279 n. 21, 319
Girén Blanc, L. 67 n. 58, 167

Glaue, P. 168, 168 nn. 65-66, 310
n. 19

Gnuse, R. 310 n. 19

Goehring, J. E. 349 n. 40

Goessling, F. 274 n. 2, 283 n. 39,
295, 340 n. 13
Golega, J. 342 n. 18
Gonzalez Luis, J. 126 n. 15, 129, 129

n. 24, 132, 133, 133 nn. 39, 42
Good, E. M. 104
Gooding, D. W. 25 n. 26, 59 n. 22,

82 n. 51, 88, 96, 96 n. 45, 97

n. 46, 98 n. 47, 100, 100 n. 55,

102, 102 n. 67, 103 n. 69, 104,

201, 203, 252, 256, 266 n. 36
Goodman, M. 126 n. 12
Goodspeed, E. J. 9
Gordon, R. P. 104
Gorg, M. 313 n. 31, 318
Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 69 n. 10,

83, 102 n. 66, 355 n. 62
Géssmann, E. 286

Gottheil, R. 180 n. 31
Grabe, J. E. 214 n. 11
Grabbe, L. L. 110, 110 nn. 5~7, 121

n. 56, 138 n. 65
Graetz, H. 57, 57 nn. 14-15, 66, 202
Graetz, M. J. 140
Gray, J. 104
Greenspoon, L. 121, 140, 150 n. 32,
152 n. 39, 153, 199 n. 30, 256
Grelot, P. 90, 104, 144 n. 12
Grenfell, B. P. 7, 113, 114 n. 24
Gressmann, H. 305, 305 n. 1, 308
a. 11, 311, 318
Gribomont, J. 356 n. 65, 361
Griggs, C. W. 347 n. 38
Grindel, J. M. 250 n. 14, 256

373

Gronewald, M. 245 n. 35

Grossfeld B. 10] n. 61, 321 n. 4

Groussouw, W. 243, 243 n, 27

Gryson, R. 187, 237, 358

Gudeman, A. 275 n. 4

Guinot, J. N. 167, 167 n. 57, 173,
278 n. 15, 279 n. 20, 279 n. 21,
283 n. 37, 286

Gundry, R. H. 325, 325 nn. 18,
20-21, 336

Gwynn, J. 125, 125 n. 9, 153

Haag, E. 19 n. 3

Hadas, M. 51

Hadassi from Edesa J. 174

Hadot, F. 42 n. 29

Haelewyck, J. C. 229 n. 34, 255, 255
n. 39, 256

Hagedorn, D. 245 n. 35, 286, 300

Hagedorn, U. 245 n. 35, 300

Hagner, D. A. 265, 266 n. 34,
272

Halévy, J. 215 n. 44

Hamm, W. 90, 104, 144 n. 10

Hamman, A. G. 281 n. 30, 286

Hammerton-Kelly, R. 25 n. 28

Hammill, LR. 262 n. 13

Hanhart, R. 20 n. 7, 30, 44, 58, 58
n. 19, 64, 65 n. 38, 66, 74 n. 29,
91, 92 n. 23, 93, 93 nn. 26-27, 94
n. 31, 98 n. 48, 99, 99 nn, 52-53,
104, 118 n. 49, 199, 201, 201
n. 35, 229 n. 34, 230, 230 n. 40,
234 mn. 56, 236, 236 n. 66, 237,
252, 253, 253 n. 28, 254, 255, 256,
272, 305 n. 2, 308 n. 9, 316 n. 42,
318, 326, 336

Hanriot-Couster, A. 273

Hansen, G. GC. 342 n. 17

Hanson, A. T. 328 n. 29

Hanson, R. P. C. 205, 205 n. 6, 220,
361

Harl, M. 1, n. 2,5 n. 9, 10, 11, 17,

23 n. 1, 27, 30, 44, 51-52, 66-67,
67 nn. 3-4, 79, 202, 206, n. 206,
990, 257, 265 n. 31, 269 n. 52,
272, 274, 282 n. 31, 86, 300, 305
n. 1, 323, 336, 338, 343, 343 nn.
22-23, 344, 344 nn. 26-27, 345, 361

Harmack, A. von 124, 125 n. 8,
166 n. 55, 281 n. 28, 281 n. 29,
286

Harrington, D. J. 263 n. [9

Harris, J. R. 114

374

Hastings, J. 241 n. 14

Hata, G. 286

Hatch, E. 6, 118, 118 n. 49,
133-134 n. 43, 139 n. 68, 143
n. 8, 272

Hatzidakis, G. N. 177 n. 17

Hautsch, E, 258 n, 2, 227 n. 24

Heater, H.

Hegermann, H. 35 n. |

Heinsius, D. 5

Heller, J. 28, 28 n. 39, 29, 30, 78
n. 41

Hemer, C. J. 322 n. 6, 336
Hengel, M. 305 n. 1, 306 n. 6,
318319

Henrichs, A. 245 n. 35
Herrmann, J. 22 n. 15
Hesseling, D, C. 177, 177 n. 18,
178, 178 nn, 19, 22, 180, 180
n. 33, 181, 181 n. 34, 182, 182
n, 38, 183, 183 nn. 41-42, 186
Hiebert, R. J. V. 354 n. 60
Hilhorst, A. 274 n. 2
Hody, H. 128 n, 22, 39
Hofmann, J. 353, 353 n. 53
Holladay, C. R. 260 n. 6, 278 n. 17
Holmes, R. 6 n. 15, 201
Holmes, S. 104
Holtz, T. 326, 326 n. 23, 336
Horbury, W. 325 n. 19
Horner, G. W. 348, 348 n. 39
Horsley, G. H.R. 13 n. 48
Hovhannessian, V. 276, 276 n. 8
Howard, G. 44, 51, 74 n. 29, 83,
158, 158 n. 13, 172, 249 n. 12,
250, 250 n. 16, 264 n. 25, 336
Howorth, H. H. 98, 98 n. 49
Hiibner, H. 336
Hunt, A. S$. 7, 113, 114 n. 24
Hyvarinen, K. 115 n. 38, 117 n. 42,
117 n, 43, 120 n, 55

glesias, M. 216 n, 50, 249 n. 8, 11
n. 22

Illyricus, F. 340 n. 12

Irigoin, J. 202

Irmscher, J. 271 n. 57

Isserlin, B. S. J. 51

Jackson, F. J. F. 335

Jacobson, H. 261

Jacoby, F. 260 n. 6

Jalabert, L. 267, 267 nn, 38, 42,
272

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

James, M. R.

, 332

Janssens, G. 217 n. 51, 221

Janzen, J. G. 76 n. 35, 81, 81 n. 47

‘Jarick, J. 120 n. 55, 121, 341 nn.
14-15

Jeansonne, S. P. 92, 92 n. 25, 104

Jellicoe 26, 30, 51, 66, 70 n. 15, 85,
88 n. 11, 99, 109 n. 1, 121, 123
n. 4, 140, 142, 155, 150, 150
n. 31, 153, 155, 172, 175 n. 8, 200
n. 32, 211 n. 28, 220, 237, 240,
240 n, 5, 242 n. 22, 243, 243
n. 26, 244 n. 30, 246, 255 n. 35,
257, 305, 322, 322 n. 9

Jenni, E. 94 n, 37

Jeremias, J. 258 n. 1, 259 n. 3, 263
n, 21, 271 n. 58, 273, 333 n. 46,
334 n. 50

Jerphanion, G. de 268 n. 48, 272

Jervell, J. 132 n. 34

Jobes, K. H. 255, 255 n, 34

Johannessotin, M. 334 n. 51

Johnson B. 214, 214 n. 36, 351 a. 45

Johnson, 8. E. 336

Jones, H. St.

Jonge, M. de 101 n. 59

Jordan, H. 274 n. 1, 286, 340 n. 12,
347 n. 36

Jouassard, G, 259 n. 4, 272

Joiion, P. 10

101 n. 59, 280, 320

Kabasale Mukenge 263 n. 17
Kaestli, J.-D. 362
Kahana, A. 51
Kahle, P. 43, 53 n. 1, 54 n. 2, 55
n. 4, 55 n. 5, 65 n. 38, 70, 70
n. 13, 71-72, 85-86, 94-95, 98,
102, 104, 112 n, 18, 176, 176
n. 11, 205, 213, 215, 215 n. 45,
217 n. 51, 219, 219 nn. 53-54,
220-221, 258, 264, 329, 336
Kalitsunakis, J. 186
Kamesar, A. 275 n. 4, 276 nn. 7, 10,
282 n. 35
Kaminka, A. 87 n. 8, 88 n. 9
Kampel, H. 312 n. 25
Kannengiesser, C. 221
Kappler, W. 201 n. 35
Kapsomenos, 5. G. 14 nn. 49-50, 17
Karkavy, A. 187, 202
Karo, G. 157 n. 6, 166, 290, 291
n. 7, 296-300, 296 n. 20, 297 n. 23
Kase, E. H. 256 n. 35

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Kasser, R. 349 n. 42

Katz, P. 11 n. 34, 56, 56 n. 12, 57
n, 13, 65, 65 nn. 36-37, 66, 104,
114, 114. 28, 118, 118
n. 47, 122, 139 n. 68, 201, 203,
251, 251 n. 20, 255 n. 35, 256,
264, 264 n. 25, 265 n. 33, 272,
334 n. 51

Kauffmann, F. 236 n. 66

Kautzsch, E. 52

Kedar-Kopistein, B. 28 n. 36, 338
n. I

Kennedy, H. A. A. 336

Kenyon, F. G. 202, 241, 242 n. 22,
256

Kerrigan, A. 171 n. 80, 286

Kilpatrick, G. D. 194 n. 15, 202

Kipper, J. B. 80, 122, 169 n. 70,
170, 170 n. 75, 171, 171 nn.
76-78, 80, 172 n. 81, 173

Kittel, R. 16, 23, 70, 306, 317

Klein, R. W. 249 n. 11, 250 n. 15,
256

Kijn, A. F. J. 43, 140

Klostermann, E. 113 n. 20, 135
n. 48, 220

Knibb, M. A, 353 n. 54

Koch, D.-A. 336

Koch, K. 104

Koenen, L. 202, 245 n. 35

Koester, H. 346 n. 34, 362

Kohn, 8. 167, 167 n. 61, 168, 168
n, 63, 173

Kraft, R. A. 21 n. Il, 72 n. 22, 191
n. 1, 192 n. 6, 202, 266 n. 37

Kramer, J. 245 n. 35

Kraus Reggiani, C. 52

Krauss, 8. 172, 172 n. 82, 173, 174
n. 1, 187

Krebber, B. 245 n. 35

Kretschmer, P. 14 n. 49, 17

Kriger, P. 361

Kimmel, W. 3 n. 2

Kuntzmann, R. 31, 61 n. 25, 103,
271, 319, 322 n. 6

Kurzinger, J.

Labate, A. 140, 300

Labriolle, P. de 286

Laga, C. 279 n. 22

Lagarde, P. de 43, 53, 56, 64, 65, 65
n. 38, 66-72, 93, 94, 94 n. 34, 149
n, 29, 227, 227 n. 22, 237, 239, 239
n. 1, 241, 241 n. 12, 255, 259

Lagrange, M. J. 246

Lake, K. 20 n. 8, 335

Lamb, J. A. 362

Lampe, G. W. H. 22 n. 14, 159,
343

Lange, N. R.M. de 113, 115 n. 33,
122, 177 n. 15, 178 n. 23, 185
n. 52, 187, 206, 206 nn. 8-9, 220

Latte, K. 240 n. 8, 245, 245 n. 38

Le Boulluec, A. 100 n. 54

Le Déaut, R. 101, 101 n. 62, 102,
105, 321 n. 4

A.R. 256

267 nn. 38, 42

25 n. 28, 30, 317 n. 43

10, 10 n. 31

Legrand, M. E. 180

Lehmann, H. J. 173

Lelia, A. A. di 263 n, 16

Leone, A. 191 n. 3, 192 n. 5, 193
n. 8, 195, 195 n. 18, 202

Liddell, H. G. 25

Lieberman, S. 310 n. 18

Liebesny, H. 37 n. 9

Liebreich, L. J. 122, 132 n. 37, 139,
139 n. 67, 140

Liesenborghs, L. 245 n. 35

Lietzmann, H. 157 n. 6, 166, 205,
205 n. 3, 213, 290, 291 n. 7, 296,
296 n. 20, 297, 297 n. 23, 298-300

Lifshitz, B. 71, 72 n. 21, 169 nn. 67,
69, 173, 257, 267 n. 38

Lindl, E. 289 n. 5, 300

Livingstone, E. A. 173, 301, 339
n, 8, 341 n. 14

Loebe, J. 359 n. 80

Lofgren, O. 353, 353 n. 52

Lohse, B. 215 n. 45

Lomas, J. 307 n. 6, 268 n. 49

Lopez Eire, A. 14 n. 49

Luca, S. 300

Lucchesi, E. 286

Ludlum, J. H. 95 n. 38, 104

Ludwig, A. 342 n. 18

Lunt, H. G. 360, 360 n. 87

Lust, J. 82 n. 51, 98 n. 47, 313, 313
n. 30, 319

Liitkemann, L. 114, 114 n. 25

Luther, M. 21 n. 12

Maas, P. 199, 199 n. 29
Magnien, V. 319
Mai, A. 284 n. 43

376

Maraval, P. 273

Marcus, R. 125, 125 n. 9, 275 n. 6,
319

Margerie, B. de 286

Margolis, M. L. 19 n. 5, 30, 64, 83,
199, 199 nn. 28, 30, 202

Margot, J.C. 27 n. 34

Martin, R. A. 30

Martinez de Cantalapiedra, M. 340
n, 12

Masch, A. G. 180 n. 31

Maser, M. 262 n. 13, 321 n. 3

Masius, A. 354

Masson, E. 19 n. 3

Mayser, E. 14

McCasland, J. V. 319

McCullough, J. C. 336

McLean, N. 93, 93 n. 28, 145, 167
n. 59, 175, 183, 200, 200 n. 34, 226
n. 19, 228, 241, 241 n. 17, 249

McNamara, M. 221, 321

Meecham, H. G. 12, 12 n. 42, 52,
262 n. 14

Meek, T. J. 66, 232 n. 46, 262 n. 14

Méhat, A. 269, 270 n. 54

Meillet, A. 14 n. 49

Meisner, N. 41, 52

Melancthon, Ph. 16

Méléze Modrzejewski, J. 63

Mendels, D. 39, 52

Mendelsohn, L. 39

Menken, M. J. J. 327 n. 26, 336

Mercati 61, 113, 114, 114 n. 29,
121, 123, 123 n. 3, 127, 127 n. 20,
132 n. 35, 140, 145, 145 n. 16,
156, 156 n. 5, 157 n. 6, 159-160,
160 n. 22, 161, 161 n. 28, 166-167
n. 56, 172173, 179, 179 n, 27, 187,
194, 197 n. 23, 202, 207, 207
n, 15, 211, 211 n. 30, 212 n. 31,
213, 213 n. 34, 214-215, 216 n. 46,
217 n. 51, 220, 220 n. 55, 221,
226, 237, 283 n. 39, 285, 294, 295,
295 n. 18

Metzger, B. M. 194 n, 14, 194
n. 17, 202, 223 n. 4, 227 n. 21,
230 n. 39, 237, 233 n. 51, 237,
339 n. 8, 359 n. 82, 360 n. 83

Meyer, W. 281 n. 29

Mez, A. 233, 233 n. 53

Michaelis, M. 3 n. 3

Middendorp, Th. 316 n. 41, 319

Migne, J. P. 281 n. 30, 284 n. 43, 295

Milik, J. T. 255 n. 33

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Mill, J. 241

Millar, F. 126 n. 12

Millet, G. 300

Milligan, G. 322 n. 6, 336

Mirambel, A. 14 n. 49

Mohile, A. 114 nn. 26-27, 122, 128
n. 21

Mohrmann, C. 16 n. 55

Momigliano, A. 64 n. 34

Mondesert, C. 271, 272, 300

Montevecchi, O. 7 n, 16, 8 n, 22

Montfaucon, B. de 95

Montgomery, J. A. 9, 64, 90, 90
n. 17, 96 n, 44, 104

Moore, C. A, 94, 149 n. 27

Moore, G. F. 94 n. 36, 104, 227
n. 25, 244, 244 n. 31

Morano Rodriguez, C. 357 n. 72

Moreno Hernandez, A, 357 n. 72

Morenz, 8. 313 n, 31

Morreale, M. 22 n. 14, 175 n. 7

Moule, CG. F. D. 327

Moulton, J. H. 11, 11 n. 35, 322
n. 6, 325 n. 19, 344

Mounin, G. 30

Moyise, S. 330 n. 36

Miihlenberg, E, 294 n, 15, 300

Mulder, M. J. 320 n, 2, 338 n. 1,
354, 354 n. 61

Miller, K. 44, 52

Miiller, M. 322 n. 7, 272, 336

Munnich, O. 67 n. 3, 152, 152 n. 36;
38, 153, 198 n. 27, 202, 248, 248
n. 5, 250 n. 14, 252 n. 21; 25, 257

Muraoka, T. 97 n. 46

Murray, O. 52

Mussies, G. 12 n. 40, 17, 325 n, 19

Musurillo, H. 286, 340 n. 10

Nagel, P. 272, 349 n. 42

Nahon, G. 186

Nautin, P. 204 n. 1, 207, 207 n. 16,
215 n. 43, 220, 282 n. 34, 286

Nestle, E. 127, 127 n. 20, 140, 172,
241, 241 n. 14, 272

Neubauer, A. 174, 174 nn. 3-5, 178,
178 n. 20, 187

Neuhaussler, E. 286

Neuschiifer, B. 282 n. 34

Neves, J. C. M. das 319

New, D. S. 326 n. 25, 336

Nickels, P. 321 n. 4

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 305, 305 n. 1

Nida, E. A. 27, 27 n. 34, 30

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Nielsen, E. 335 n. 52, 336
Nikiprowetzky, V. 272

i 319

¥. 341 n, 14

Nodet, E. 265 n. 28, 272
Norden, E. 308 n. 12
Noret, J. 271 n. 57
Norton, G. J. 221
Noy, D. 325 n. 19
Nyberg, H. S. 69, 69 n. 9

7 n. 16, 192, 192

O'Callaghan, J.

140, 147 n. 23,

Olivier, J. M. 283 n. 38

Olmstead, A. T. 83

Olofsson, S. 26, 26 n. 31, 30, 312
n. 27

Opelt, 1. 132 n. 34

Orlandi, T. 349 n. 40

Orlinsky, H. M. 17, 26, 64 n. 35,
66, 70, 70 n. 16, 207, 207 n. 17,
216, 216 n. 48, 221, 313, 313
n. 29, 319

Ottley, R. R.

10, 241, 241 n. 18
Paap, A. H. R. E. 193 n. 13
Padva, P. 327
Palm, J. 13, 45-46
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. 174
n. 3, 187
Papageorgios, 8. 174 n. 5
Paramelle, J. 275 n. 6, 286
Paranikas, M. 281 n. 29
Parente, F. 52
Parsons, J. 6, 6 n. 15, 201 n. 38
Parsons P. J. 2t n. 11, 72, 72 n. 22,
192 n. 6
Paschke, F. 336
Pasinya, L. M. 29 n. 40, 317, 317
n. 46, 319
Pasor, G. 6
Pasoris, G. 6 n. 12
Paul, A. 110, 110 n. 6, 122, 308 n. 10
Pautler, A. 273
Pazzini, M. 154
Pearson, B. A. 320 n. 2, 349 n. 40
Peeters, M. K. H. 349 n. 39
Pelletier, A. 39, 52, 307 n. 8, 333
n, 44
érez Castro, F, 167 n. 58, 216
n. 50, 217 n. 51, 248 n. 8
Pérez Fernandez, M. 280 n. 26

377

Perkins, L. J.

Perles, F. 140

Perles, J. 164, 173, 174 mn. 2, 4,
184 n. 46, 187

Perrot, C. 61, 61 n. 25

Petersen, W. L. 221

Peterson, E. 268 n. 47, 272

Petit, F. 275 n. 6, 286, 294, 294
n. 15, 297-98 n. 24, 300

Pfeiffer, R. H. 99, 99 n. 50

Pfochen, S. 5

Phelipeau, J.

Philonenko, M.
264 n. 22

Pietersma, A. 66, 193 n. 12, 231
n. 43, 234 n. 55, 237

Pifiero, A. 48 n. 56

Pirot, L. 284 n. 41, 44

Pliimacher, E. 333 n. 49

Plumley, J. M. 350, 350 n. 43

Popper, J. 100

Potin, J. 19 n. 5

Pretal, O. 94, 104, 214, 217, 222,
231 n. 41

Preuschen, E, 221

Prigent, P. 265 n. 33, 269 n. 53, 270
n. 54, 272, 273

Prijs, L. 102 n. 65

Procksch, O. 213, 294

Psaltes, St. B. 177 n. 17, 182 n. 37

Psichari, J. 17

Pummer, R. 173

231 n. 43

169, 225, 225 n. 13
138, 138 n. 61, 140,

Quasten, J. 361
Quecke, H. 349 n. 39

Rabin, Ch. 31, 104, 336, 362

Rabinowitz, L. J. 112 n. 13, 122

Radice, R. 321 n. 3

Rahifs, A. 64, 71, 114, 114 n. 25,
122, 149, 149 n. 28, 154, 157, 165,
166 n. 53, 167, 168, 168 n. 65, 170
n. 71, 173, 175 n. 8, 176, 191, 194,
200 n. 32, 201, 201 n. 35; 37, 209,
227, 227 nn. 26-27, 228, 228 n. 29,
233-234, 237, 241, 241 n. 19-20,
242, 246, 255, 259, 259 n. 3, 264,
268 nn. 43-45, 271, 271 n. 58,
285, 299, 301

Rahmer, M. 276 n. 10

Redpath, H. A. 10, 118, 319

Reese, J. M. 315 n. 40

Reider, J. 115, 115 n. 37, 117 n. 44,
118, 118 nn. 45-46; 48, 122

378

Reif, S.C. 187

Rhenferd, J. 5

Rhodes, FE. F. 351 n. 48

Richard, E. 333 n. 45

Richard, M. 277 n. 11, 279 n. 22, 282
n, 33, 285 n. 47, 286, 295 n. 16, 301

Riddle, D. W. 9

Rife, J. M. 31

Rinaldi, G. 64 n. 34

Roberts, B. J. 31

Roberts, G. H. 192 n. 5, 193 n. 9,
194 n. 14, 203

Robertson, A. ‘T. 10

Robinson, M, 320 n. 2

Rodriguez-Adrados, F.

Rofé, A. 82 n. 50

Rokeah, D. 35 n. t

Romeny, R. B. ter Haar 173,
276 n. 8

Rerdam, 8, 353, 353 n. 57

Ros, J. 5 n. U1, 16 n. 53, 17

Résel, M. 313, 313 n. 31, 319

Rosén, H. B. 19 n. 3, 175 n. 6

hal, E. I. J. 187

L. 93 n. 29

63, 63 n. 32, 66

12 n. 43

HP. 114, 115 n. 32
DT. 321 n.3
Rydbeck, L. 13, 13 n. 47, 17, 336

Sabatier, P. 357, 357 n. 74

Sabugal, S. 319

Sacchi, P. 51, 140, 264 n. 22

Sdenz-Badillos, A. 95, 111 n. 10,
154, 166 n. 52, 170 n. 73, 222,
228, 229 nn, 33, 35, 244, 271, 278
n. 14, 297 n, 23

Safrai,$. 17, 307 n.6, 319, 325 n. 19

Sakon, Y. 39 n. 20

Salmon, G. 148, 148 n. 26, 154

Salvesen, A, 126, 126 nn, 13-16, 129,
129 nn, 24-25, 130 nn, 30, 131,
131 mn. 33, 132 n. 34-35, 133, 133
nn. 40°42, 138 n. 63, 140, 173,
212, 221

Samir, K. 355, 355 n. 63

Sanderson, J. E. 71 n. 18

Sandevoir, P. 100 n. 54

Santos Otero, A. de 347 n. 36, 360
n. 86

Saussure, F. de 26

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Scaliger, J. J. 39

Schaller, B. 263 n. 20, 272

Schaper, J. 313, 313 n. 31, 319

Schaublin, C. 275 n. 4, 276 n. 7,
283 n. 3

Schenke, H.-M. 114, 349 n. 39

Schenker, A. 114 nn. 30-31, 221,
295 n. 18
Schiby, J. 169 n, 67, 173

Schildenberger, J. 357 n. 72

Schleusner, J, Fr. 6 a. 15

Schlosser, J. 31, 61 n. 25, 103, 105,
271, 319

Schmid, W. 3 n. 3

Schmidt, D. 330 n. 35, 337

Schmitt, A. 89, 89 n, 12; 14, 91, 91
n. 21, 104, 137, 137 nn, 57-59, 144
n. 13, 145, 145 n. 15, 146
n. 20, 150, 150 n. 33, 151, 154,
313 n. 31, 319

Schoeps, H. J. 124, 125 n. 6, 126,

128 n. 22, 129, 131, 132, 132

nn. 35-36; 38, 139 n. 70, 140

Scholer, D. M. 320 n. 2

Schreiner, J. 95, 104, 257

Schuchard, B. G. 327 n. 26, 337

Schulthess, 355 n. 62

Schulz-Fliigel, E. 358

Schtipphaus, J. 90, 104, 154

Schiirer, E. 52, 126, 126 n. 12

Schwartz, E. 211 n. 29, 222

Schwartz, J. 268 n. 45, 272

Schwartz, W. 21 n. 12

Schwass, M. 19 n, 6

Schweizer, E. 283 n. 38

Schwemmer, A. M. 305 nu. 1, 319

Scopello, M. 273

Scott, R. B. Y. 9

Scott, R. 25

Scroggs, R. 25 n. 28

Sed-Rajna, G. 187

Seeligmann, I. L. 24 n. 21, 31, 59
n. 20, 83, 101 n. 63, 102, 102 n. 65,
203, 306, 311 n. 23, 312 n. 25, 319

Semler, J. S. 164

Sephiha, H. V. 16 n. 52, 175 n. 7,
180 n. 31, 185 n. 50, 187

Sevenster, J. N. 325 n. 19, 333 n. 47

Sgherri, G. 206 n. 10, 221

Shenkel, J. D. 82 n. 52, 250 n. 14,
257

Shirun, H. 355 n. 62

Shutt, R. J. H. 52

Siena, Sixto de 340 n. 12

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Silva, M. 13, 13 n, 48, 323 n. 10

Silverstone, A. E, 122

Simon, M. 316 n. 42, 319

Simonetti, M. 362

Simpson, E. K. 12, 13 n. 44

Sipild, S. 229 n. 35

Sirat, G. 175 n. 7, 187

Skeat, T. C. 193 n. 9, 203

Skehan, P. W. 26, 26 n. 31, 66, 71
n. 18, 73 n. 26, 83, 140, 191 n. 4,
252, 252 n. 24, 257, 263 n. 16

Smit Sibinga, J. 265 n. 33, 266, 266
n. 36

Smith, D. M. 328 n. 30, 329 n. 32

Smith, J. Z. 16 n. 54

Smith, M. 32 n. 34, 250 n, 14, 257

Smits, C. 136, 136 n. 54, 323 n. 11,
337

Smolak, K. 342 n. 18

Soffer, A. 26, 313

Soisalon-Sominen, I. 26 n. 33, 31,
94, 104, 122, 214, 214 n. 36

Sokoloff, M. 355 n. 62

Sollamo, R. 26 n. 33, 31

Sonderlund, S. 81 n. 47

Spanneut, M, 295 n. 16, 237

Sparks, H. F. D. 333 n. 45, 337

Speiser, E. A. 217 n. 51, 222

Sperber, A. 53, 55, 55 nn. 6-7, 64,

187, 215, 215 n. 44, 217 n. 51,
218, 219, 219 n. 52, 290, 222, 304,
328, 328 n. 28, 337

Speyer, W. 4 n. 4, 274 n. 3, 286

Spicq, C. 327

Spottorno, M*. V. 192 n. 5, 233,
237, 265 n. 28, 272

Sprenger, H. N. 164 n. 45, 166, 166
n. 54, 173, 284 n. 43

Stanley, C. D. 329, 337

Stanton, G. 326 n. 22

Starrat, A.B, 266 n. 37

Steel, C. 279 n. 22

Stegmiiller, O. 203

Stemberger, B. 310 n. 19

Stendahl, K. 327, 337

Stern, M. 17, 267 nn. 38, 307 n. 6,
309 nn, 14-15, 310 nn. 16-17; 19,
319, 325

Steve, M. A. 268 n. 46, 272

Steyn, G. J. 265 n. 31, 273, 326
n. 24, 337

Stichel, R. 267 n. 41, 273

Stockmayer, 'T. 233, 233 n. 52

Stoebe, H. J. 66

379

Stone, M. E. 104, 149 n. 27, 320
n. 2, 347, 347 n. 36, 362
Strack, H. L. 321, 321 n. 5
Streitberg, W. 358 n. 79
Stricker, B. H. 43, 63, 63 n. 32
Stuiber, A. 204 n. 1, 223 n. 3, 282
n, 34, 285, 361
Sturz, F. G. 6
Swete, H. B, 22, 22 n. 16, 31, 39, 52,
58, 60, 66, 67 n. 2, 85 n. 1, 98
n, 48, 122, 123 n, 4, 125, 125
n. 10, 129 n. 26, 134 n. 43, 135,
136 n. 51, 140, 154, 155, 175 n, 8,
179, 179 n, 24, 198, 198 n. 27,
200 n. 32, 210, 210 n. 23, 214
n. 37; 40, 221, 237, 241, 241
n, 13, 246, 261 n. 11, 262
nn. 14-15, 263 n. 18, 264, 266,
273, 287, 292 n. 9, 305, 323, 339,
362
Sznol, S.

175 n. 6

‘Tabachovitz, D. 136 nn. 55, 333, 333
n. 45; 48-49, 334 nn. 50-51, 335,
335 nn. 53, 337

Taber, Ch. R. 30

Talmon, S. 74, 74 nn. 29-30, 77,

77 n. 38, 83, 88, 234 n. 57, 250,
250 n. 17, 251, 256

Talshir, Z. 3!

Tardanides, J. C. 360 n. 84

Taylor, B. A. 237

Taylor, C. 113, 113 n. 22, 114 n. 23,
127 n. 19

‘Tcherikover, V. A. 52, 267 n. 38

Thackeray, H, St J. 17, 22, 22 n. 15;
17, 25, 26, 26 nn, 29-30, 39, 52,
59, 59 n. 23, 60, 66, 93, 93 n. 28,
96, 96 n, 44, 97 n. 46, 135, 135
n. 50, 145, 200 n. 31; 34, 233, 233
n, 53, 265, 273

‘Thenius, O. 69, 69 n. 12

Thiele, W. 101, 101 n. 60, 187, 237,
358

Thieme, C. A. 129, 129 n. 23, 132,
140

Thomas, K. J. 327, 327 n. 27, 328,
337, 353

Thornhill, J. 228, 237

Thraede, K. 4 n. 7, 281 n. 29, 308
n. 9, 342 n. 18

Thumb, A. 8, 8 nn. 21-22, 9, 13, 17

Tischendorf, F. C. von 200, 200
n, 33

380

Tisserant, E. 93 n. 30, 237

Torrey, GC. C. 9, 9 n, 4, 333 n. 46

Touati, C. 186

Tov, E. 21 nm. 11, 22 n. 13, 25 n. 28,
27 xn. 35, 31, 52, 72 nn. 22°23, 74,
74 n, 30, 75, 75 n. 31, 76, 78, 78
n. 39; 42, 79 n. 45, 81, 81
on. 47-48, 82 n. 51; 53, 83, 98, 109
n. 1, 118 n. 49, 122, 147 n. 21, 149
n, 27, 154, 169, 169 n. 68, 173,
192, 192 n. 6, 199, 235, 235 n. 61,
237, 250, 250 n, 18, 251 n. 19,
255, 255 n. 31, 256-57, 267 n. 40

Tramontano, R. 52

Trebileo, P. 325 n. 19

Trebolle Barrera, J. 79 n. 45, 98, 98
n, 47, 342 nn. 19, 21, 357
n, 73, 362

Tresmontant, C. 29 n. 40, 317 n. 46

Treu, K. 223 n. 5, 271 n. 57, 286,
301

Troiani, L. 52

‘Trom, A. 6, 6 n. 14

Troyer, K. de 255, 255 n. 34

Trudinger, L. P. 136, 136 n. 54,
330, 330 n. 34, 337

Tuckett, C. M. 332, 332 n. 42, 337

Turner, E. G. 17, 73 n. 27, 203

Turner, N. 11, 1] n. 34-35, 17,
118, 118 n. 48, 122, 322 n. 6

Tychsen, O. G. 61, 61 n. 27

Ulrich, E. C. 71 n. 18, 75, 76 n. 33,
96 n. 43, 84, 89 n. 15, 203, 211
n. 26, 221, 233, 233 n. 54, 235,
235 n. 62, 238, 251 n. 19, 257,
265 n. 28, 273, 286, 358, 358
n. 77

Urbach, E. E, 187

Vaccari, A. 238, 240, 240 n. 4, 242,
242 n. 23, 244, 246, 252, 283
n, 39
Van der Honert T. 5
Van der Horst, P, W. 12 n, 40
Vanderkam, J. C. 353 n. 54
Van der Kooij, A. 126, 126 n. 13;
15-16, 355 n. 61
Van der Woude, A. 8. 76, 76 n. 34
Van Esbroeck, M. 40 n. 22, 51
Van Haelst, J. 7 n. 16
Van Ruiten, J. 330 n. 36
Van Unnik, W. CG. 321 n. 5
Vargas-Machuca, A. 334 n. 51

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Various Authors
Vattioni, F. 66
Veltri, G. 52
Venard, L. 337
Venetz, H. J. 157, 157 n. 10, 158
n. 16, 159, 160, 160 n. 24, 172, 250
n. 13
Vercellone, C.
Verd, G. M.
Vergote, J. 10, 10 mn. 31-32, 17
Vermes, G. 110 n. 4, 126 n. 12,
257, 273, 320 n. 1, 321 n. 4
Vielhauer, P. 135 n. 48, 362
Vilar-Hueso, V. 56 n. 10, 272, 336
Vinel, F. 273, 341 n. 14
Vives, L. 39
Vivian, A. 51, 140
Vogels, H. J. 337
Védbus 167 n. 56, 173, 211 n, 28,
354 n. 60

24, 288, 362

232, 233 n. 48
22 n. 14

Waard, J. de 28, 28 n. 37, 31, 56
n, 10, 331 n. 40, 337
Wacholder, B. Z. 260 n. 7, 261 n. 9;
12
Walter, N. 52, 261 n. If
Walters, P., see Katz, P.
28, 201 n. 36; 40, 203
Watson, W. G. E. xv
Webb, R. L. 273, 320 n. 2
Weber, R. 357 n. 71
Wegnern, A. von 284 n. 43
Weissert, D. 31, {04
Wellhausen, J. 9 n. 23, 69, 69 n. 12

25 n. 26;

Wendel, C. 194 n. 17
Wendland, P. 39, 52, 203, 279 n. 18
Wermilinger, O. 362
Wessely, GC. 127, 127 n. 20, 128, 140

Wete, W. M. L. de 327

Wetstein, J. J. 321 n. 5

Wevers, J. W. 64, 65, 65 n. 38, 66,
69, 69 n. 9, 78, 78 n. 41, 84, 91
n, 21, 92 n. 23, 100, 100 n. 56,
101 n. 59, 131, 157, 160, 162
n. 32, 163, 163 n. 36-37; 40, 165
n. 49, 168, 168 n. 64, 175, 175
n. 8, 176, 176 n. 10; 12, 177 n. 13,
184, 184 nn. 46-47, 187, 201, 201
n, 35, 203, 226 n. 19, 229, 229
n, 34, 232, 234 n. 55, 238, 239,
239 n. 2, 243 n. 28, 244, 246, 247
n. 1, 248 n. 7, 252, 257, 262 n. 14,
268, 268 n. 48, 293 n. 11, 315

Wiebe, R. A. 273, 320 n. 2

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Wiftstrand, A. 337

Wigtil, D. N. 362

Wikgren, A. 273

Wilcox, M. 12, 12 n. 38, 273, 323
n. 10, 324 n. 16, 333 n. 45

Williamson, H. G. M. 335

Willoughby, H. R. 17, 66

Willrich, H. 52

Wills, L. M. 38 n, 12

Wilson, R. Mcl, 273

Winer, G. B. 6, 6 n. 13

Winkelmann, F. 358 n. 78

Wolff, J. C. 180

Wotke, C. 280 n. 23

Wright, B. G. 27 n. 35, 104

Wiirthwein, E. 251 n. 20

Wutz, F. X. 55, 61, 61 n. 26; 29, 62,
66, 215, 215 n. 44, 217 n. 51, 219

Yahalom, J. 355 n. 62

Zahn, G. 124 n. 6, 140

Zeitlin, 8. 310 n. 19

381

Ziegler, J. 22 nn. 13, 15, 23 n. 20,
24 n, 24, 59 n. 20, 64, 89, 89
n, 13, 95 n. 40, 100, 100 n. 58,
{01 n. 59, 114 n. 27, 118 nn. 47,
49, 122, 128 n. 21, 133, 133 n. 42,
134, 134 nn. 45, 47, 135, 139, 139
n. 68, 141, 149 n. 28, 159 n. 18,
162 n, 32, 163 n. 38, 164, 164
nn, 41-44, 165, 165 n. 48, 170
n. 71, 196 n. 22, 201, 201 n. 35,
203, 226, 226 nn. 16-17, 228 nn.
3032, 238, 240, 240 n. 10, 242
nn. 24-25, 251 n. 20, 257, 258
n. 1, 259, 259 nn. 2-3, 271, 282
n. 33, 285 n. 47, 294, 294
nn, 12°13, 328 n. 30, 334 n. 50

Ziegler, Th. 273

Zink, J. K. 262 n. 13

Zlotowitz, B. M. 26, 26 n. 31

Zohrab, Y. 351

Zuntz, G. 42 n. 32, 215 n. 45, 251
n. 20, 257

Zuaurmond, R. 352 n. 51

INDEX OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS

OLD TESTAMENT!

Genesis 37:3-4, 89 168

Lil 46 n. 45, 116 37:1 8ff. 334

Lz 114 38:29 334 n. 51
1:7 181 39:2 165

1:23 147 n. 22 40:9 176 n. 10
1:26 131 43:2 176 n. 31
1:27 131 43:11 176 n. 10-11
Q17 25 47:31 176 n. 9
2:2 45 n. 45 48 296

2:2a 46 n. 45 49:6b 46 n. 45
27. 147 49:8 163 n. 39
2:17 25

218 116, 181 Exedus

2:21 314 2 335 nm. 52
3:16 25 4:20a 45 n, 45
3:17 147 5:7 30

4:2 130, 181 6:3 76 n. 8
5:22 312 7:9 59

5:27 181 12:40b 45 n. 45
6:2 131 14:31 296

6:3 157 15:1, 11 176 n. 9
10: 19ff- 219 15:3 312

12:9 116 16:31 76 n. 10
14:6 219 n, 53 19:5 81

15:4 334 n. 51 19:12 34 n. 43
ivi 114 23:20 79
18:12 116 24:1 42 n. 31
18:12b 46 n. 45 25:231f. 262 n. 14
19:28 163 n. 39 2531 82

22 334 28:26 16
22:12 268 29:24 24

22:13 164 32:1 227 n. 19
22:21 261 n. 9 32:4 333 n. 44
24 335 n. 52 32:25 116
27:46 134 n. 43 34:29 227 n. 19
29 335 nu. 52 35-40 59 n. 22
34:15 175 36-39 214
34:15 157 36:3+39:19 176
35:19 157

36 261 Leviticus

36:3 261 n. 9 2-5 191
36:33 261 n. 9 11:5. 57

' Quotations according to the septuagint. If there are significant differences, as
in the book of Jeremiah, the numbers in brackets refer to the Hebrew text.

\i5a
16:15b
2311-16
25:22
26:44

Numbers
6122-27
13:1
16:15b
216, 8-9
26:42(38)

Deuteronomy
4:19

11:30
17:14-19

19:39--24:33,
24:33

Judges
1-5

5
12:6
V6:1-4

1 Samuel
2:35

9:20
13:20
13:21
15:23,30
61:21
16:18
17:39
23:21

INDEX OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS

73, 73 n. 26
138

263

165 n. 49

30:21
31:4

2 Samuel
V1-9:1

11-11

1:21

3:22

712-14

i1:2-1 Kgs 2:11

12:5
22

1 Kings
1:33-40
2-12:14
2:14

2:12-21:43
3:16-28

16:28a-h
18:32, 35, 38
19:18
20:7-17

22:41-5]

23-11-27

1 Chronicles
8:24
15:27

2 Chronicles
10:15

Nehemiah
5-7

383

130
135 n. 50

96 n. 44
59

108 n. 2
334

331 n. 41
145, 249,
250

130

236

336

98 n. 47

96, 145, 249,
250

113, 211

219 n. 53
278 n. 16

384 INDEX OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS

Tobit 9:4 130
7:9 1.29 93 14 268
17-88 114, 212
Judith 17(18):28 132 n. 35
15:17 268 2i 117 n. 41
21:2 135 n. 49
Esther 21(22):20-28 117 n. 41
Lida-2:15 144 n. 10 22 113
22:13 116
2 Maccabees 22:15--18 127 n. 19, 212
76 263 26:2 130
8:33 253 35:8-10 268 n. 46, 272
V3 253 35:9 268 n. 46
13:15 253 38:8 109 n. 2
15:18 253 43:19 135
43:24 131
4 Maccabees 45:3 112
18:14 263 48:1 170 n, 74
68:13-14, 30-33 127
Job 69 162 n. 31
2:9 261 70 162 n. 31
5:7 59 72:2 135
12:9 146 72-82 231 n. 43
14:14 312 n. 28 75:7 134 n. 43
14:18-19 46 T7118 234
15:10, 26-27 46 78:3 264 n. 3
18:15-16 46 79 268
20:34, 20-23 46 80:1 1-14 127
21:27 34 n. 43, 146 90:17 to 103:17 113
46 109:3 159
46 110:1 331 nm. 44
46 118 295 n. 19
32, 134 n. 43 118:22ff. 331 n. 41
46 143 162 n. 31
146 144 162 n, 31
228 151 73
159
146 Psalms of Solomon
153, 146 4 263 n. 21
146 ll 263 n. 21
146 13 263 n. 21
146
146 Proverbs
146 6:8abe 314
261 n. 9 9:18 132, 134 n. 43
261 n. 9 14:3 146
261 n. 9 14:4 146
261 17:16°19:3 114
19:15 314
20:14-19 146
360 n. 84 21:5 146
3 n.2 21:16 132
331 n. 41 23:27 314

159 30:19 314

INDEX OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS 385

Ruth 49:5 liln 1
4:11 227 n. 22, 228 51:9-10 146 n. 20
52:7 328 n. 30
Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 52:8 131
213-23 177, 187 54:9-10 146 n. 20
2:17, 18, 19, 209 177 n. 17 58:11 242
2:18 177 n. 17 59:18 146 n. 20
2:21 177 n. 17 §5:17-20 330 n. 36,
7:29 132 n. 34 336
66 256 n. 35
Wisdom
13-15 315 Jeremiah
pai 146 n. 20
Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) 7:2 146 n. 20
Prologue 20 68 n. 5 9:22-10:18 81
44-49 316 10:5 146 n. 20
50 310 n. 16 10:5-10 81
10:11 186
Tsaiah 11:7 146 n. 20
1-16 14 n. 25 1i:13 312
2:19ff 264 n. 23 15:15-16 170
S 208 16:5 146 n. 20
46 n. 20 17:1-5 146 n. 20
334 23:36 146 n. 20
46 n. 20 25-51 214
126, 172 n. 81 26(46):26 146 n. 20
328 n. 30 28(51):45 146 n. 20
46 n. 20 29-52 256 n. 35
35 n, 49 29:17 147
46 n. 20 21(48):20 219 n. 53
39 n. 70 31(48):45 146 n. 20
35 n. 49 32:9, 24 170
46 n. 20 33:14-16 81 n. 48
312, 312 n, 25 34(27):5, 15 146 n. 20
39 n. 70 36(29):14 146 n. 20
17:13 34 n. 43 37(30):9 146 n. 20
22:10~11 46 n. 20 38(31):22 170, 172 n. 81
24 319 38(31):32 116
24:19-20 46 n. 20 40(33):14 146 n. 20
25:5 146 n. 20 40(33):14-26 146
25:8 49, 149 n. 28 42-43 35
27:1,8 146 n. 20 44:1 1-12 170
30:27 146 1, 20 45:14 170
33:3 139 n. 70 45(38):12 146 n. 20
33:7 46 n. 20 46(39):4 146 n. 20
34:13 312 n. 25 46(39):4-13 146
34:14 32, 312 47(40):4 146 n. 20
36:2 25 n. 27 48:33 165
37:38 311 49:19 334 n. 50
42:13 312 49:22 334
43:29 312 n. 25 334 n. 50
44:9-11 46 n. 20 49(42):22 136
45:9, 14 146 n. 20 51(44):11 146 n. 20

45:19 19 52:2 146 n. 20

386

Letter of Jeremiah

43-44
Lamentations
4:14

Baruch

32:19, 23
33:27

35:6, 1-15
36:23c-38
36-39

Matthew

3:31b-52
192 4
4:10
24 n. 25 ae
6:26
263 n. 17 7
149 7-12
149 7:10
T38
: 9:7-10
2 9:15-18
9:26
46 n. 20 1211
112 n. 17 :
146 n, 20 ies.
57 :
ae 9:10
268
46 n. 20 Jonet
146 n. 20 15
146 n. 20 oa
46 n. 20 OL
146 n. 20 ae
46 1. 20 ;
ae n. 35 Habbakuk
46 n, 20 oe
146 n. 20 Pat
46 n. 20 7
82 5
3:13
46 n. 20 Zechariah
12:10
104
186
103 Malachi
104, 144 n. 10 pap)
NEW TESTAMENT
Luke
332 n. 43 1-2
134 n. 43 tT
134 n. 43 1229-31
134 n. 43 18:1
214 19:35-40
20:9
335 John
334 4
144 n, 12

INDEX OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS

153

90, 104
24 n. 25
144 n, 10
144 n. 12
144 n. 12
144 n. 12
92, 104
144

144 n. 12
149

149

109 n, 2
312

312

178

178 n, 22
178 n. 21
78 n. 22
21 n. 12

56 n. 4

331 n, 41

156 n. 4, 159

49, 149
n, 28

147

332
101 n. 59
332 n. 43
134 n. 43
336
334

335 n. 52
923 n. 2
149, 149 n. 28

739

1 Corinthians
15
15:54

INDEX OF BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS

276
149, 149 n, 28

Ephesians

Hebrews
10:30
10:33

Revelation
1:13a

136, 334

192 n.
192 n.

138
144 n,

330 n.
330 n.
330 n.
330 n.
330 n.
330 n.
330 n.
330 n.
336

orur

34
34
34
34
34

387

ABBREVIATIONS

Periodicals and Collections

BIOSCS
BIRHT

EncBibl
EstBib
ET

EYL
ERLANT
GRBS

Analecta Biblica, Rome

The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York

Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes

Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Naples

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Chicago
American Journal of Theology. Chicago

Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgentandes. Leipzig

Aufstieg und Niedergang des rimischen Welt. Berlin~-New York
Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa

Alttesiamentliche Abhandlungen. Minster

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Ziirich
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. New Haven
Biblica. Rome

Bulletin of the International Organization for Sepluagint and Cognate Studies.
Bulletin d’information de VInstitut de recherche et d'histoire des textes. Paris
(cf. RHT)

Bulletin of Fudaeo-Greek Studies. Cambridge

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. Manchester

La Bible de Tous les Temps. Paris

Beitriige zur Wissenschafl vom Alten Testament. Leipzig-Stuttgart
Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Leipzig—Berlin—Munich

Biblische Zeitschrift. Freiburg-Paderborn

Beihefle zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen Berlin
Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Washington

Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca. Turnhout-Leuven

Cuademos de Filologia Clasica. Madrid

Corpus Inscriptionum Fudaicarum. Rome

Clavis Patrum Graecorum F-V, Turnhout-Leuven 1983-87
Classical Quarterly, Oxford

Corpus Scriplorum Christianorum Orientalium. Leuven

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Madrid

Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Lilurgie. Paris

Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris

Supplement to Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris

A Dictionary of Christian Biography. London

Discoveries in the Judean Desert. Oxford

Dead Sea Discoveries. Leiden

Encyclopaedia Fudaica. Jerusalem

Enciclopedia Biblica. Barcelona

Estudios Biblicos. Madrid

The Expository Times. Edinburgh

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. Leuven

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Gottingen
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Cambridge Mass.

390 ABBREVIATIONS

Harvard Theological Review. Cambridge Mass.

Hebrew Union College Annual. Cincinnati

International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh~New York

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. New York—Nashville

Supplement to fnterpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, New York~Nashville

Israel Exploration Journal. Jerusalem

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Chicago

Jalebuch fiir Antike und Christentum. Minster

Journal of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore

Journal Asiatique. Paris

Journal of Biblical Literature. Philadelphia

The Jewish Encyclopaedia. New York~London

Journal of Jewish Studies. Oxtord

Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago

Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages. Stellenbosch

Jewish Quarterly Review, London-Philadelphia

Jiidische Schriflen aus hellenistisch-rémischer Zeit. Giitersloh

Journal for the Study of Judaism, Leiden

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Sheffield

Journal of Semitic Studies. Manchester

The Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford

Der Kleine Pauly Lexikon der Antike. Stutigart

Kleine Schriften.

Kleine Texte fiir Vorlesungen und Ubungen. Berlin

Mansi J.D, Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio. Florence-
Paris—Leipzig

MGW] = Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. Breslau

MIOF Mitleilungen des Instituts fiir Orientforschung. Berlin

MSU Mitteilungen des Septunginta-Unternehmens. Berlin~ Gottingen

NGIWG6tt_ Nachrichten von der (Kgl.) Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Gottingen

NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift. Leipzig, Erlangen

NT Novum Testamentum, Leiden

NTS New Testament Studies. Cambridge

NTSuppl Supplement to Novum Testamentum. Leiden

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Fribourg»Géttingen

OLZ Onentalische Lileraturzeitung. Berlin

Os Orientalia Suecana. Uppsala

OTS Oudtestamentische Studién, Leiden

PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research. Philadelphia
PG Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca. Paris

PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina. Paris

PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. London
PA Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen. Bonn.

PW Paulys-Wissowa Real Encyclopédie der Classischen Altertumswissenschafl. Stuttgart
RAC Reallexikon fiir Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart

RB Revue Biblique. Paris

RBén Reue Bénédictine, Maredsous

REB Revue des Etudes Byzantines, Paris

REG Revue des Etudes Grecques. Paris

RET Revue des Etudes Juives, Paris

RGG Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ‘Viibingen

RHPhR — Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religicuses. Strasbourg—Paris
RHR Reoue de VHistoire des Rehgions. Paris

RHT Renue d’Histoire de Textes. Paris (previously BIRHT }

ABBREVIATIONS 39]

RvB Rivista Biblica alana, Bologna

RQ Revue de Qumran. Paris

RSPATh Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques. Paris
RSR Revue des Sciences Religieuses. Strasbourg

SBELA — Studii biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus. Jerusalem
SG Sources Chrétiennes. Paris

SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies, joula Mont,
SJOT — Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament, Arhus
ST Studi e Testi, Rome

TECC — Textos_y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros. Madrid

TLE Theologische Literaturzeitung. Leipzig Berlin

TR Theologische Rundschau.Pibingen

TRE Theologische Realenkyklopidie, Berlin

TRev Theologische Revue. Minster

TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Hamburg-Gotha~-Leipzig~Berlin

TU Texte und Untersuchungen. Leipzig’ Berlin

TWNYT — Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart
eG Theologische Zeitschrift. Basle

VC Vigiliae Christianae. Amsterdam

VT Vetus Testamentum. Leiden

VTS Supplement to Vetus Testamentum. Leiden

wo Die Welt des Orients. Wuppertal Stuttgart-Géitingen

WS Wiener Studien. Vienna

WUNT Wissenschajiliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tiibingen

RAH Reitschrift fiir Alihebraishk, Stuttgart

AW Keitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen~Berlin

<DMG — Zeitschnift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig-Wiesbaden
ZNW Zeitschrift fiir die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen—Berlin

ATK Reitschrifl fiir Theologie und Kirche. Tubingen

KVS Keitschrift fiir Vergleichende Sprachforschung. Gouingen

Titles of Books Cited

P. R. Ackoyd and C. F. Evans (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume 1:
From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970 = Cambridge History of the Bible L

G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds), Sepiuagint, Scrolls and Cognale Writings: Papers Presented
to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Writings (Manchester, 1990), SCS 33, Atlanta, Ga. 1992 = Septuagini, Scrolls and
Cognate Writings.

D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (eds), Jt is Written; Scripture Citing Scripture,
Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, Cambridge 1988 = It is Written.

P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker (eds.), Mélanyes Dominique Barthélemy. Eludes

bibliques offertes & Voccasion de son 60° anniversaire. OBO 38, Fribourg-Géttingen 1981 =
Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy.

C. E. Gox (ed.), VI Congress of the Intemational Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Jerusalem 1986. SCS 23, Atlanta, Ga. 1987 = VI Congress of the IOSCS.

C. E. Cox {ed.), VIZ Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Lewen 1989. SCS 31, Atlanta, Ga. 1991 = VII Congress of the IOSCS.

W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism. 2: The
Hellenistic Age, London 1989 = The Cambridge History of Judaism.

392 ABBREVIATIONS

G. Dorival and O. Munnich (eds), “Selon les Septante”. Hommage 4 Marguerite Harl,
Paris 1995 = Selon les Septanie.

L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds), Josephus, the Bible, and History, Leiden 1989 =
Josephus,

N. Fernandez Marcos {ed.), La Sepiuaginia en la investigacién contemporanea (V Congreso
de la LOSCS). TECC 34, Madrid 1985 = La Septuaginta.

N. Fernandez Marcos, J. C. Trebolle Barrera and J. Fernandez Vallina (eds), Simposio
Biblico Espanol, Salamanca 1982, Madrid 1984 = Simposio Biblico Espaiiol.

D. Fraenkel, U. Quast and J. W. Wevers (eds), Studien zur Septuaginta~-Robert: Hanhart
zu Ehren. Aus Antass seines 65. Geburtstages. MSU XX, Gottingen 1990 = Studien zur
Septuaginta,

L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds), VIL Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992. SCS 41, Adanta, Ga. 1995 = VIT Congress
of the IOSCS.

M. Harl, G. Dorival and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaisme hel-
lénistique au chyistianisme ancien, Paris 1988 = La Bible grecque des Septante.

M. Harl, La langue de Japhet. Quinze études sur la Septante et le grec des chrétiens, Paris
1992 = La langue de Japhet.

B. M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and
Limitations, Oxford 1977 = The Early Versions.

M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation
of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen—Maastricht 1988 =
Mikra.

D. Mujioz Leon (ed.), Salvactén en la Palabra. Targum-Derash-Berith, En memona del pro-
JSesor Alejandro Diez Macho, Madrid 1986 = Salvaciin en la Palabra.

G. J. Norton and 8S. Pisano (eds), Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique
Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday. OBO 109, Fribourg—Géttingen 1991 =
Tradition of the Text.

A, Pietersma and C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers
on his Sixty-fifth birthay. Mississauga, Ontario 1984 = De Septuaginta.

J. Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Festschrift fir Joseph Ziegler. Vol. 1: Beitrége
zur Septuaginta, Vol. 2: Beitriige zu Psalmen und Propheten, Wisrzburg 1972 = Wort, Lied
und Gottessprach.

E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, G. Vermes,
F. Millar and M. Goodman (eds), Edinburgh IIL.1, 1986; IIL.2, 1987 = The History
of the Jewish People.

J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress:
Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991,
Leiden~Madrid 1992 = The Madrid Qumran Congress.

General Abbreviations

0 The Septuagint
oe Aquila
ro Symmachus

Theodotion

&
¢
A
B

BCE

Brooke-McLean

Dis
ed./eds

ABBREVIATIONS 393

Quinta

Sexta

Alexandrian Codex

Vatican Codex

Before the Common Era

A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, H.St J. Thackeray, The Old Testament
in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus... 1--9 Cambridge
1906-40.

C. Dogniez, Bibliography of the Septuagint. Bibliographie de la Seplante
19701993, Leiden 1995,

circa

S. P. Brock, Ch. T. Fritsch, 5. Jellicoe, A Classified Bibliography of
the Septuagint, Leiden 1973.

Common Era

confer

died

desinit

Dissertation, doctoral thesis

edited by/editors

especially

Festschrift

ibidem

incipil

International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Missoula,
Mont.

H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. 8. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon,
Oxford, 1968.

The Septuagint

manuscript/manuscripts

Neue Folge

New Series

New Testament

opus citatum

Old Testament

page/pages

papyrus

Codex Sinaiticus

Socicty of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia

S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford 1968.

volume

Abbreviations of the Biblical Books

Gen.
Ex.
Lev.
Num.
Di.
Josh.
Jgs

1 Sam.
2 Sam.

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1 Kgs 1 Kings
Exodus 2 Kgs 2 Kings
Leviticus 1 Chron. | Chronicles
Numbers 2 Chron, 2 Chronicles
Deuteronomy Ezra Ezra
Joshua Neh. Nehemiah
Judges ‘Tob. Tobit
Samuel Jud. Judith
Samuel Est, Esther

394

1 Mac.
2 Mac.
Job
Ps./Pss
Prov.
Ruth
Qoh.
Song
Wis.
Sira
Is.
Jer.
Lam.

Bar.

Mt.
Mk
Lk.
Jn
Acts
Rom.
1 Cor,
2 Cor.
Gal.
Eph.
Phil.
Col.

1 Thess.
2 Thess.

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Job

Psalm/Psalms
Proverbs

Ruth

Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes)
Song of Songs
Wisdom

Sira (Ecclesiasticus)
Tsaiah

Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch

ABBREVIATIONS

Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zachariah
Malachi

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

| Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians

t ‘Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians

1 Tim.
2 Tim.
Tit.
Phm.
Heb.
Jam.

1 Pe.
2 Pe.
1 Jn

2 Jn

3 Jn
Jude
Ap.

1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 Jobn
Jude
Apocalypse/Revelation

The Septuagint in Context

Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible

This translation of the second - revised and expanded —
Spanish edition deals fully with the origins of the Septuagint.
It discusses its linguistic and cultural frame, its relation to the
Hebrew text and to the Qumran documents, the transmission
of the Septuagint and its reception by Jews and Christians.

It includes the early revisions, Aquila, Symmachus and
Theodotion, the Christian recensions and particularly Origen's
Hexapla, Biblical commentaries and catenae, as well as other
issues such as the relation of the Septuagint to Hellenism,

to the New Testament and to Early Christian Literature.

It is a comprehensive introduction to the Septuagint,

the first translation and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible,
and to other Greek versions of the Bible until the

Renaissance.

ISBN 90-04-11574-9

ISBN 9004 115749 9 | | 115743">

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Natalio Fernandez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible"

See other formats